2451.03 Attachment D- Consultation Qs

2451.03 Attachment D.pdf

Soil and Non-Soil Fumigant Risk Mitigation (Renewal)

2451.03 Attachment D- Consultation Qs

OMB: 2070-0197

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

Attachment D
Consultation Questionnaire for the “Soil and Non-Soil Fumigant Risk Mitigation” Renewal ICR
OMB Control No.: 2070-0197; EPA No.: 2451.03
Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0150
Representative Consulted
Company Name:
Questions Related to Soil Fumigants
(1)

Publicly Available Data

(2)

•

Is the information (i.e. Fumigant management plan (FMP) and Post Application Summary (PAS),
training materials, etc.) that the Agency requests available from any public source, or already
collected by another office at EPA or by another agency?

•

Frequency of Collection
•

(3)

Can applicators record, maintain, and distribute the information less frequently and still produce the
same outcome?

Clarity of Instructions

The ICR is intended to account for the paperwork burdens associated with the requirements for certain fumigant
product users to develop FMPs and Post Application Summaries (PASs), to post signs, to participate in fumigantspecific trainings when required, and to provide certain information to decrease the likelihood of applicator,
handler, and bystander exposure to fumigants.
•

Based on the available instructions (fumigant labeling requirements, EPA guidances, etc.), is it clear what
is required? If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?

•

Do you understand that you are required to maintain records? How long you are required to maintain
these records?

•

While there no required forms associated with this process, EPA does provide sample FMP/PAS
templates for soil fumigants online (https://www.epa.gov/soil-fumigants)? Do you use them or have
you developed your own format?
o

If you use EPA’s templates, are they clear, logical, and easy to use? Do you have
recommendations on improving the templates?

If you have developed your own format, why did you choose to do so?
1

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

(4)

Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping
•

•
(5)

Are you completing the FMPs and PASs and maintaining records by paper or electronically?
o

If you are using paper, is it possible for you to keep records electronically?
 If yes, why have you chosen to complete the requirements by paper?
 If no, what obstacles have you experienced that prevent you from completing the
requirements electronically?

If you are completing the requirements electronically, in what format (e.g., Word, Excel,
online, etc.)?
 Has electronic recordkeeping reduced your paperwork burdens? If so, please explain.

What benefits would electronic reporting and recordkeeping bring you in terms of burden reduction or
greater efficiency in compiling the information?
Burden and Costs

•

The Agency assumes there are some capital costs for soil fumigant users for buffer zone signs and
monitoring equipment (e.g., testing devices and Draeger tubes). Are the estimates for these capital costs
accurate? Are there other capital costs that have not been captured in this ICR?

•

How many soil fumigant applications are made annually? Please list the fumigant(s) and site(s) covered
by your estimate.

•

How long does it take to complete a soil fumigant FMP? Please list the fumigant(s) and site(s) covered by
your estimate.

•

Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?

OMB Control No. 2070-0197
Questions Related to Non-Soil Fumigants
(1)

Publicly Available Data

(2)

•

Frequency of Collection
•

Can you record, maintain, and distribute the information less frequently and still produce the same
outcome?

•

On average, how many non-soil fumigant applications are performed in any given year?

•

Some homes, buildings, and commodities may be fumigated every year, by the same pest control
company or under contract, such that the time required for all subsequent, similar applications to
that same site is reduced significantly. However, the current data available to EPA does not make a
distinction between initial and subsequent applications. Due to limited information, EPA has
assumed that every non-soil fumigant application requires a new FMP (except EtO and sulfuryl
fluoride which are still in registration review; therefore, requirements for EtO and sulfuryl fluoride
are subject to change), and that the estimated burden hours are the same for all non-soil fumigant
applications.

•

(3)

Specifically for EtO, is EPA’s assumption correct for the time to develop the EtO Safety and
Awareness training, time to take the training, and time to complete an annual update of the
training? If not, please provide estimates of the time needed to complete these activities.

Clarity of Instructions

Based on the available instructions (fumigant labeling requirements, EPA guidances, etc.), is it clear what
is required? If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?
3

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

•

Do you understand that you are required to maintain records? How long you are required to maintain
these records?

•

While there no required forms associated with this process, EPA does provide sample FMP templates for
soil fumigants online (https://www.epa.gov/soil-fumigants). Do you use them as a guide for completing
the non-soil fumigant requirements, or have you developed your own format?

(4)

If you have developed your own format, why did you choose to do so?

Without an available template specification created for non-soil fumigants, has it been
difficult to develop your own format to comply with the non-soil fumigant labels? Do you
believe that an EPA-developed template for non-soil fumigants will help to reduce burden?

Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping
•

•
(5)

Are you completing the FMPs and maintaining records by paper or electronically?
o

If you are completing the requirements electronically, in what format (e.g., Word, Excel,
online, etc.)?
 Has electronic recordkeeping reduced your paperwork burdens? If so, please explain.

What benefits would electronic reporting and recordkeeping bring you in terms of burden reduction or
greater efficiency in compiling the information?
Burden and Costs

•

How many non-soil fumigant applications are made annually? Please list the fumigant(s) and site(s)
covered by your estimate.

•

How long does it take to complete a non-soil fumigant FMP? Please list the fumigant(s) and site(s)
covered by your estimate.

•

Douglas Products

www.douglasproducts.com

Douglas Products’ Response to EPA’s Sulfuryl Fluoride
Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures and Supporting Documents
EPA Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0136

EXHIBIT A
Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry
Mitigation Measures

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
Executive Summary
On May 23, 2021, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened a 60-day
public comment period, which was later extended for an additional 60 days, on its proposed
risk mitigation procedures for sulfuryl fluoride fumigations as described in the document,
Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0136-0105).
The proposed risk mitigation procedures would require significant and extensive labeling
changes for sulfuryl fluoride products registered for fumigation of residences, including Vikane®
gas fumigant. EPA is proposing these procedures in response to recommendations in the Office
of Inspector General’s (OIG) 2016 report, Additional Measures Can Be Taken to Prevent Deaths
and Serious Injuries from Residential Fumigations (No. 17-P-0053).
Douglas Products organized a Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel to assess the labeling changes
proposed by EPA and provide comments to EPA on the proposed changes. Panel members
have expertise in residential fumigation and include representatives from fumigation
companies in California, Florida, Hawaii, and other states, Vikane distributors, pest control
associations, legal/regulatory advisors, and technical and commercial leaders at Douglas
Products. The members of the Panel are listed in Appendix I to this document.
A summary of the assessment of this Advisory Panel of the proposed changes to five sections of
the sulfuryl fluoride product labeling is as follows:
1. EPA proposal: Remove the SF-ExplorIR and Interscan as approved sulfuryl fluoride
clearance devices based on a laboratory evaluation conducted by the EPA Analytical
Chemistry Branch (ACB).
Advisory Panel Assessment: The Advisory Panel did not review the EPA’s clearance device
test as part of its charge; however, it understands that Douglas Products, and the device
manufacturers have identified a number of issues with the EPA protocol, the testing itself,
and EPA’s interpretation of the test results, all of which will be addressed in comments to
be filed with EPA by Douglas Products. In light of these issues, it is the Advisory Panel’s
position that the manufacturers of the sulfuryl fluoride clearance devices that EPA proposes
to remove from the label should be given time to conduct additional studies to
demonstrate that these devices have sufficient sensitivity to measure sulfuryl fluoride to
continue to be used as clearance devices.
2. EPA proposal: Add more description of warning sign features and placement to improve
their durability and visibility during the fumigation process.
Advisory Panel Assessment: Fumigators in states that regulate fumigation warning signs in
any manner should be exempt from federal labeling requirements for warning signs. The
preamble to the signage requirements should be revised to make clear that the label’s sign
requirements apply only in states that do not have their own signage requirements.

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
Revisions in the proposed sign formatting for states without requirements are
recommended to be consistent with formatting requirements in states which already have
fumigation warning sign regulations to the extent possible, as summarized below:
1) The applicator must post the fumigated areas with warning signs with a white
background stating the following:
a. The signal word DANGER/PELIGRO at a minimum height of 2 inches in height, the
SKULL and CROSSBONES symbol at a minimum of 1 inch in height, and “Area under
fumigation, DO NOT ENTER/NO ENTRE,” all printed in color(s) contrasting with the
white background.
b. The date of fumigation.
c. Name of fumigant used (minimum height ½ inch).
d. Name, address, and telephone number of the applicator or company performing
the fumigation.
2) Information on warning signs must remain legible during the entire posting period.
3) Warning signs must be placed on the structure at or near all doors and entrances.
4) On tented structures, additional warning signs must be placed on the outside of the
tarp so that they are clearly visible from all accessible sides, and from any direction
from which the site may be approached.
The proposal that warning signs must “be placed on all seams on first floor level where
two tarps are joined by the fumigator,” should be deleted because it will be confusing for
state regulators to enforce. It is also redundant with the above proposed label change
that warning signs are placed so they are “clearly visible from all accessible sides, and
from any direction from which the site may be approached.”
3. EPA proposal: Require a Fumigant Management Plan (FMP) that describes specific
information to be documented for each fumigation.
Advisory Panel Assessment: Based on the Advisory Panel’s review, it is reasonable to
require the following categories of information to be either recorded in advance of, during,
or after a fumigation, as appropriate, and modified as information is collected. Any FMP
language on the new labels should make clear when each piece of information is required
to be documented, and any timing requirements should not be unduly burdensome.
Therefore, the information below followed by (B) would be documented before the
fumigation; other information would be documented during the fumigation process. The
categories of information below should be permitted to be recorded in various locations,
including fumigation logs, Vikane Fumiguide® reports, employee records, state notification
websites, or other documents and records where it is currently recorded in hardcopy or
electronically to avoid needless duplication of effort.
•
•
•
•
•

Fumigation company (B)
Fumigation site address (B)
Type of structure (B)
Target pest(s) (B)
Dosage factor

2|Page

•
•
•
•
•

Tarp condition
Seal condition
Wind (mph)
Volume (1000 cubic feet) (B)
Underseal

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

Temperature
Hours of Exposure
Name and license number of
certified applicator in charge, and
name of second trained person(s)
and certified applicator(s) assisting
with introduction of sulfuryl fluoride
and chloropicrin
Total ounces of chloropicrin
introduced
Cylinder serial number(s) of sulfuryl
fluoride applied
Pounds of sulfuryl fluoride applied
Date and time of fumigant release

•
•

•

•
•

•

Date and time aeration initiated
Name and license number of
certified applicator initiating
aeration
Name of second trained person(s)
and certified applicator(s) assisting
with initiating aeration if two trained
persons are required to be present
Date and time final clearance testing
are completed
Name and license number of
certified applicator(s) conducting
final clearance testing
Clearance device model type

The Advisory Panel concluded the remaining information proposed by EPA is not necessary
to document for each fumigation site for one or more of the following reasons: it is
recorded in other company records unrelated to a specific fumigation, is not available to the
fumigator, is not necessary for conducting a safe and effective fumigation, is redundant,
does not exist, and/or is not required or specified on the labeling and therefore would be
difficult to enforce.
4. EPA proposal: Require specific stewardship plans by registrants to be posted on the EPA
website. These plans will include initial and annual training, who must attend this
training, and training content.
Advisory Panel Assessment: The proposed definition of persons required to take the
stewardship training should be changed to “All employees (including owner or licensed
employee responsible for managing/supervising the fumigation operations as required by
state regulations) who introduce chloropicrin and sulfuryl fluoride, reenter fumigated spaces
wearing an SCBA, initiate aeration, and/or conduct final clearance testing.” The proposed
requirement, "For states that do not already require practical experience as part of their
state certification, a field component should be included in the registrant stewardship
training," needs to be deleted because it is not clear that it would legally be possible for the
registrants to do this.
5. EPA proposal: Replace Aeration Procedures 1 and 2 with the California Aeration Plan
(CAP).
Advisory Panel Assessment: Aeration Procedures 1 and 2 must remain on the labeling
because they are used in California when CAP cannot be completed or is not practical to
conduct, such as aeration of small structures (e.g., detached garages, sheds, vehicles,
recreational boats, recreational vehicles, shipping containers, and truck cargo containers),
tape-and-seal fumigations, and indoor tarped stack fumigations.
3|Page

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
In addition, CAP should not be implemented as an interim labeling change. CAP is very
complex and will require more time to evaluate and implement as part of the sulfuryl
fluoride registration review process. It took 10 years for the California structural fumigation
industry to develop CAP to meet their environmental conditions, regulatory requirements,
and business practices. Fumigators in other states need the opportunity to evaluate and
adapt CAP equipment for their local conditions, change state regulations that conflict with
implementation of CAP, assess all the changes required by CAP to their fumigation business
operations, and learn how to conduct CAP. As examples,
•
•
•

•

CAP equipment has not been evaluated for climates with high rain and high wind.
CAP equipment has not been evaluated for tape-and-seal fumigations.
Some states have regulations which require two trained persons be present during
the initiation of aeration, which CAP only requires one person be present. State
regulators also need time to train their personnel on CAP and to change their
operations for implementation and enforcement of CAP.
Fumigators need to time to assess the following changes to their fumigation
business:











4|Page

Contracts.
Property owner preparation
lists.
Pricing.
Sales literature.
Web sites.
Advertising.
Company operating
procedures.
Internal company training
procedures on aeration.
Fumigation vehicle
equipment inventory lists.
Scheduling for fumigations
and employee deployment.









Additional equipment because tarps are
left on the structure for an additional
day.
New CAP ducting and inlets.
Additional fumigation vehicles to carry
the equipment.
Educate fumigation company sales and
office personnel, customers, and pest
control companies (i.e., prime
contractors) about the new aeration
procedures.
Inform insurance provider of the new
aeration procedure, which requires
more equipment and longer time with
tarps on the structure.

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
Introduction
On May 23, 2021, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened a 60-day
public comment period, which was later extended for an additional 60 days, on its proposed
risk mitigation procedures for sulfuryl fluoride fumigations as described in the document,
Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0136-0105).
The proposed risk mitigation procedures are for sulfuryl fluoride products registered for
fumigation of residences. These procedures are proposed in response to recommendations in
the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) 2016 report, Additional Measures Can Be Taken to
Prevent Deaths and Serious Injuries from Residential Fumigations (No. 17-P-0053). The
procedures are proposed to be implemented ahead of the typical mitigation phase of the
current registration review of sulfuryl fluoride, and include the following labeling changes:
1. Remove the SF-ExplorIR and Interscan as approved sulfuryl fluoride clearance devices
based on a laboratory evaluation conducted by EPA’s Analytical Chemistry Branch (ACB).
2. Add more description of warning sign features and placement to improve their
durability and visibility during the fumigation process.
3. Require a Fumigant Management Plan (FMP) that describes specific information to be
documented for each fumigation.
4. Require specific stewardship plans by registrants to be posted on the EPA website.
These plans will include initial and annual training, who must attend this training, and
training content.
5. Replace Aeration Procedures 1 and 2 with the California Aeration Plan (CAP).
In response to the significant and extensive labeling changes proposed by EPA, Douglas
Products organized a Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel. Panel members include representatives
from fumigation companies in California, Florida, Hawaii, and other states, Vikane® gas
fumigant distributors, pest control associations, legal/regulatory advisors, and technical and
commercial leaders at Douglas Products. The Advisory Panel met remotely every week
beginning June 22, 2021, to systematically review the proposed labeling changes. The Advisory
Panel reviewed the proposed changes in relation to current fumigation practices, stewardship
programs, and state fumigation regulations in states where residential fumigations are
routinely conducted. The Advisory Panel conducted data gap analyses of existing fumigation
regulations in key fumigation states, including California and Florida, and created a historical
timeline of the steps required to develop and implement CAP in California. As a result of
extensive review and discussion, the Advisory Panel produced the following assessment of the
labeling changes proposed by EPA for sulfuryl fluoride residential fumigants. 1
1

A residential fumigant is labeled for fumigation of residential structures, such as Vikane® gas fumigant.

5|Page

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
Assessment
1. Remove the SF-ExplorIR and Interscan as approved sulfuryl fluoride clearance
devices based on a laboratory evaluation conducted by the EPA Analytical
Chemistry Branch (ACB).
The Advisory Panel did not review the EPA’s clearance device test as part of its charge;
however, it understands that Douglas Products and the device manufacturers have
identified a number of issues with the EPA protocol, the testing itself, and EPA’s
interpretation of the test results, all of which will be addressed in comments to be filed with
EPA by Douglas Products. In light of these issues, it is the Advisory Panel’s position that the
manufacturers of the sulfuryl fluoride clearance devices that EPA proposes to remove from
the label should be given time to conduct additional studies to demonstrate that these
devices have sufficient sensitivity to measure sulfuryl fluoride to continue to be used as
clearance devices.

2. Add more description of warning sign features and placement to improve their
durability and visibility during the fumigation process.
Additional requirements for warning sign features and placement must not override or
conflict with state requirements already in place. States that have created their own
warning sign/placarding requirements should be permitted to enforce those requirements
as they currently exist and are understood by regulatory authorities and fumigators in those
states. The states have spent substantial time designing warning sign requirements that
make sense in view of local requirements and fumigators in those states have obtained the
necessary signs and undergone the necessary training to implement those programs. EPA’s
preamble to the warning signs section in the Proposed Labeling Changes section of the
mitigation measures document appears to be consistent with this, as it states that the
warning sign requirements specified therein apply “unless otherwise specified by state
regulations.” The Advisory Panel proposes additional language to clarify that understanding
shown in Table 1.
The Advisory Panel conducted a data gap analysis of fumigation warning signs requirements
in states, including California, Florida, Texas, and Georgia, that regulate the formatting and
placement of these signs. Based on this analysis, the following revised language is proposed
for label language that would apply to warning sign formatting and placement in states that
do not currently have warning sign requirements:

6|Page

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
1. The applicator must post the fumigated areas with warning signs with a white
background stating the following:
a. The signal word DANGER/PELIGRO at a minimum height of 2 inches in height, the
SKULL and CROSSBONES symbol at a minimum of 1 inch in height, and “Area under
fumigation, DO NOT ENTER/NO ENTRE,” all printed in color(s) contrasting with the
white background.
b. The date of fumigation.
c. Name of fumigant used (minimum height ½ inch).
d. Name, address, and telephone number of the applicator or company performing
the fumigation.
2. Information on warning signs must remain legible during the entire posting period.
3. Warning signs must be placed on the structure at or near all doors and entrances.
4. On tented structures, additional warning signs must be placed on the outside of the
tarp so that they are clearly visible from all accessible sides, and from any direction
from which the site may be approached.
The recommended revisions in warning sign formatting and placement are made to be
consistent with regulations in numerous states and current language in the labeling,
including the Manual, for Vikane® gas fumigant (Table 1). Warning signs following these
regulations provide appropriate public warning and are readily enforceable by state lead
agencies. As noted above, fumigators in states that regulate the formatting and
placement of fumigation warning signs should be exempt from the labeling requirements
for sign formatting and placement on the EPA-approved labeling.

3. Require a Fumigant Management Plan (FMP) that includes specific information to
be documented for each fumigation.
The Advisory Panel conducted a data gap analysis of state fumigation regulations in
California and Florida that require comprehensive documentation of fumigations conducted
using residential fumigants. Both states have extensive experience with regulatory
enforcement for safe and effective use of residential fumigants. This information has been
found to be necessary and helpful for regulatory compliance monitoring. Based on the
Advisory Panel’s review, it is reasonable to require the following categories of information
to be either recorded in advance of, during, or after a fumigation, as appropriate, and
modified as information is verified. The fumigator will verify information on site, such as
structure volume, to calculate the dosage and dose prior to fumigant introduction. Any
FMP language on the new labels should make clear when each piece of information is
required to be documented, and any timing requirements should not be unduly
burdensome. Therefore, Information below followed by (B) would be documented before
the fumigation; other information would be documented during the fumigation process.
The categories of information below should be permitted to be recorded in various
locations, including fumigation logs, Vikane Fumiguide® reports, employee records, state

7|Page

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
notification websites, or other documents or records where it is currently recorded in
hardcopy or electronically to avoid needless duplication of effort.
General information:
•
•
•

Fumigation company (B)
Fumigation site address (B)
Type of structure (B)

Dosing calculations:
• Target pest(s) (B)
• Dosage factor
• Tarp condition
• Seal condition
• Wind (mph)

•
•
•
•

Volume (1000 cubic feet) (B)
Underseal
Temperature
Hours of Exposure

Introduction of chloropicrin and sulfuryl fluoride:
• Name and license number of certified applicator in charge, and name of second trained
person(s) and certified applicator(s) assisting with introduction of sulfuryl fluoride and
chloropicrin
• Total ounces of chloropicrin introduced
• Cylinder serial number(s) of sulfuryl fluoride applied
• Pounds of sulfuryl fluoride applied
• Date and time of fumigant release
Initiation of aeration:
• Date and time aeration initiated
• Name and license number of certified applicator initiating aeration
• Name of second trained person(s) and certified applicator(s) assisting with initiating
aeration if two trained persons are required to be present
Final clearance testing:
• Date and time final clearance testing are completed
• Name and license number of certified applicator(s) conducting final clearance testing
• Clearance device model type
Table 2 reviews the additional information EPA is proposing be included in FMPs, and why
this information is not necessary to document for each residential fumigation site using
sulfuryl fluoride. Reasons why this additional information is not necessary include one or
more of the following: it is recorded in other company records unrelated to a specific
fumigation, is not available to the fumigator, is not necessary for conducting a safe and
effective fumigation, is redundant, does not exist, and/or is not required or specified on the
labeling and therefore would be difficult to enforce.

8|Page

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
Because fumigation companies transport the residential fumigant and chloropicrin to the
fumigation site, they must comply with extensive Department of Transportation (DOT)
requirements for transporting hazardous materials. Fulfilling DOT requirements also fulfill
FMP requirements for accident prevention and emergency response preparation. DOT
requirements include the following:
1. A written security plan.
2. Training of all fumigation personnel responsible for transporting, storing, and
handling these hazardous materials.
3. Requirements for the driver of the vehicle transporting the fumigant and
chloropicrin.
4. Requirements for the vehicle transporting the fumigant and chloropicrin.
To develop a security plan for residential fumigants and chloropicrin, the fumigation
company must assess all the potential risks during storage and transport (172.802 Components of a security plan, Appendix II). The written plan must address these
identified, potential risks, including procedures 1) to prevent unauthorized personnel from
accessing hazardous materials and 2) for various emergency response scenarios.
Fumigation employees responsible for storing, transporting, and/or working with these
hazardous materials at fumigation site must be trained on the parts of the security plan
they must know for their fumigation-related activities.
The DOT requires employees complete the Hazardous Material Employee Training (49 CFR §
172.700 HM-232, Appendix III). The Certified Operator, “second training person,” and
driver of the vehicle transporting the residential fumigant and chloropicrin are considered
Hazardous Material Employees and must receive this training. Part of this training on
hazards associated with sulfuryl fluoride and chloropicrin, personal protective equipment to
prevent overexposure, first aid, and proper fumigant cylinder handling are in the annual
registrant-provided stewardship training. Additional fumigation company-specific training
on the security plan is required, as described above. All training must be documented.
There are rigorous requirements for the driver of the vehicle transporting the fumigant and
chloropicrin. The driver must comlete the following:
1. Obtain a commercial driver’s license (CDL) with a Hazardous Materials (HazMat)
Endorsement. This requires taking a test and passing with a minimum required score.
2. Obtain a medical qualification certificate. The driver must be medically certified as
physically qualified to operate a commercial vehicle and have the certification on them
when driving the truck when transporting the fumigant and chloropicrin.
3. Successfully pass drug and alcohol testing.
4. Successfully pass a background check by the Transportation Security Administration.
9|Page

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
There are also many requirements for the vehicle transporting the fumigant and
chloropicrin, including:

1. Placarding when carrying sulfuryl
fluoride cylinders (Class 2 Inhalation
Hazard) and chloropicrin containers
(Class 3 Inhalation Hazard) (49 e-CRF
172.400) (Fig. 1 to left).

2. Transporting the sulfuryl fluoride cylinders and chloropicrin containers in a separate air
space from passengers, under lock and key, upright, and secured so they do not shift
during transport (Fig. 2)

Fig. 2. Proper transportation of cylinders of Vikane® gas fumigants (left) and chloropicrin
container in HAZMAT packaging (center and right).
3. The driver must have a shipping paper with Emergency Response Information Provider
(ERIP) contact phone number (Fig. 3). The ERIP must have knowledge of the emergency
response procedures for sulfuryl fluoride and chloropicrin, such as first aid, spill control,
fire-fighting, etc. if contacted during an emergency. Douglas Products has a program
that if the only hazardous materials a fumigation truck transports is Vikane® gas
fumigant and Douglas Products branded chloropicrin, the fumigation company can
register each year to use the Douglas Products ERIP phone number on their shipping

10 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
4. Require specific stewardship plans by registrants to be posted on the EPA website.
These plans will include initial and annual training, specify who must attend this
training, and training content.
Overall, the requirements for proposed registrant-provided initial and annual stewardship
training are similar in content to what is currently provided by Douglas Products for Vikane®
gas fumigant. Changes to the EPA-proposed definitions of customers and persons required
to take the sulfuryl fluoride registrant-provided stewardship training are requested and the
reasons for these changes are described in Table 3.
In addition, the following proposed requirement must be deleted, "For states that do not
already require practical experience as part of their state certification, a field component
should be included in the registrant stewardship training." It is not clear that it would
legally be possible for the registrants to do this. Registrants and potential trainees do not
have the authority to access fumigation sites to conduct this type of hands-on training. For
liability reasons, only employees of a licensed fumigation company can work with
equipment, including tarps, sulfuryl fluoride, and chloropicrin at fumigation sites. EPA will
need to work with state lead agencies to require practical experience as part of the state
certification process.
As an example, the University of Florida (UF) School of Structural Fumigation at the Ft.
Lauderdale Research and Education Center, student participants can only view the
fumigation process at the Hurricane House on campus. Employees of a licensed fumigation
company conduct the preparation, tarping, chloropicrin and sulfuryl fluoride application,
aeration, and clearance testing of the Hurricane House. Students of this program cannot
conduct these activities for liability reasons. The Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (FDACS) offers certified operator and special identification cardholder
exams for fumigation the day after this program ends. Attendees of this program who want
to take either of these certification exams must obtain their practical work experience at
other fumigations before coming to the UF School of Structural Fumigation.
The Douglas Product stewardship policy requires companies that are newly approved to use
Vikane to have a Douglas Products representative on site when the company conducts its
first fumigation using Vikane. Before this occurs, fumigation employees must have received
their initial Vikane stewardship training, and the company must have documentation of
purchasing the necessary clearance device(s), safety equipment (including SCBA), and other
equipment required to fumigate.
A minor modification is recommended to the following statement in the EPA proposed
labeling language about the product stewardship plan as follows: “….. This plan is also
available at EPA’s website for [Product name]. and [Product name] must only be used by
application personnel that have satisfactorily completed the [product name] stewardship
12 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
program, including the initial and annual training requirements.” This revision clarifies that
only application personnel who have completed the product stewardship program can use
the fumigant.

5. Replace Aeration Procedures 1 and 2 with the California Aeration Plan (CAP).
Reviewing and modifying aeration procedures was not one of the EPA OIG
recommendations. For this reason and all the reasons outlined below, implementing CAP
needs to be evaluated as part for the sulfuryl fluoride registration review process and not
implemented as an interim labeling change.
a. Aeration Procedures 1 and 2 cannot be removed from the sulfuryl fluoride labeling
because they are used in California when CAP cannot be completed or is not practical.
Aeration Procedures 1 or 2 are used when CAP cannot be completed due to a tarp blow
open or equipment failure, and are written into CAP as follows:
“If Tenting Blows Open: If the job is finished, it can be resealed and aerated using the
aeration method described here. If the job is finished and cannot be resealed,
tarpaulins can be removed. Aeration must be completed using Aeration Procedure 1 or
Aeration Procedure 2 from the sulfuryl fluoride product labeling.
If the job is not finished, it can be resealed, more fumigant added if necessary, and the
aeration method described here used for aeration. If the fumigation cannot be resealed
and is to be rescheduled for a later date, tarpaulins can be removed. Aeration must be
completed using Aeration Procedure 1 or Aeration Procedure 2 from the sulfuryl
fluoride product labeling.”
Aeration Procedures 1 or 2 are used when CAP is not practical to be used at a variety of
fumigation sites. These include:
• Small buildings, such as detached garages and sheds, that do not have a man door or
window.
• Small structures such as vehicles, recreational boats, recreational vehicles, shipping
containers, and truck cargo containers (Fig. 4). For small structures, including
buildings, the CAP duct fan draws in tarps so tightly that the tarps and the fumigated
structure can be damaged.

13 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures

Fig. 4. Examples of small, tarped
structures which would be difficult and
not practical to aerate using CAP (photos
top left clockwise); recreational boat, car,
storage pod.

•
•

For tape-and-seal fumigations, and for part tarp/part tape-and-seal fumigations.
Tarped stack fumigations within a building, when fumigating cabinets, furniture,
flooring, and other items (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5. Tarped pews in church fumigated for control of drywood termites (left, photo by
Rudi Scheffrahn), tarped hardwood flooring fumigated for drywood termite control
(right).

14 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
which documented CAP provides protection to 1 ppm for workers, bystanders, and
occupants. After this submission, the California fumigation industry had nearly 1.5 years
to complete revising CAP language and make other preparations before PCOC submitted
the CAP language to CDPR for approval in April 2010. When CDPR approved CAP in May
2010, PCOC has already prepared industry training and communications about CAP.
California fumigators had six months to transition to CAP. During the transition period,
fumigators were allowed to use the current aeration procedure (Tarpaulin Removal
Aeration Plan, TRAP) or CAP as they acquired required CAP equipment, learned how to
conduct CAP, and transitioned their business operations to conduct CAP.
California fumigators had time to develop CAP and write the step-by-step description of
CAP to ensure this aeration procedure would be practical for California fumigators and
would not conflict with California regulations. They developed the robust CAP
equipment and procedures suitable for California environmental conditions. Fumigators
in other states need the opportunity to evaluate and adapt CAP equipment for their
local conditions, change state regulations that conflict with implementation of CAP,
assess all the changes required for their fumigation business operations, and learn how
to conduct CAP, as discussed below.
c. CAP duct and cover need modification and evaluation for high rain and high wind
environments.
Field trials of CAP in Florida conducted by Douglas Products, with the assistance of
licensed fumigation companies, have confirmed that rain events can interfere with the
proper functioning of CAP equipment. During the fumigation, rainwater can accumulate
and depress the CAP duct cover, making the cover difficult to remove as intended when
the fumigator at ground level pulls a strap to peel back the cover. During aeration, rain
can accumulate in the bottom of the duct, restricting airflow through the duct and
potentially interfering with the duct fan operation. Therefore, the CAP duct and duct
cover need to be modified and evaluated for use in high rain conditions.
In addition, CAP equipment needs to be evaluated for high wind environments,
particularly in Hawaii. In Hawaii, high winds are a daily occurrence and fumigators often
try to limit the time tarps remain on buildings to prevent damage to the tarps and the
building.
d. CAP equipment has not been evaluated for tape-and-seal building fumigations.
Tape-and-seal is conducted for many reasons, including:
•

16 | P a g e

Fumigant confinement is better with a tape-and-sale than using tarps. This includes
buildings with exterior walls or facades made of gas-resistant materials, such as
concrete, brick, tile, stucco, metal, and fiberglass (Fig. 7).

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures

Fig. 7. Tape-and-seal (photos left to right); truck cargo containers (two methods of
tape-and-sealing), concrete block garage.
•

Tarping would damage the structure. This is of particular concern for historical
buildings, such as those with roofs of fragile tile or wood shingles or protruding
decorative sculptures, that could be damaged by tarp placement and movement
during the fumigation. One example is the fumigation of the art studio of the
historic Bonnet House in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (Thoms et al. 1998). The art studio
had a wood shingle roof, which may have been damaged by the tent crew walking
on it to place tarpaulins. The exterior concrete block walls of the art studio provided
an effective barrier to fumigant leakage.

•

Tarping would cover valuable exterior plants attached to or directly adjacent to the
building and these plants would die due to exposure to sulfuryl fluoride.

•

Tape-and-seal provides a cost savings to the consumer, especially for bed bug
fumigations conducted in states in which fumigation tarping is infrequently
conducted. Tarping is unnecessary for many bed bug fumigations because the bed
bugs, unlike wood-destroying insects, do not infest exterior facia, soffits, door and
window frames, roof sheathing, attics, and crawlspaces. As a result, tape-andsealing can effectively confine sulfuryl fluoride in the areas infested by bed bugs.
Fumigators in these areas therefore do not need to invest in expensive tarpaulins,
clamps, snakes, and other tarping materials and supplies.

•

Tape-and-seal can be safer for a fumigator to conduct in conditions such as a steeply
sloped roof, multi-story , or a building located on a slope. This is particularly true in
areas in which tarping is infrequently done and fumigators do not have training or
experience in installing tarps using man-lifts, cranes, rappelling harnesses, or similar
equipment. Examples are a 3-story New Jersey apartment complex (Fumigation
Update 2007), the 8-story Samuel G. Hubert Apartments in Reading, Pennsylvania
(Miler and Fisher 2008), and the 18-story Biltmore Towers in Dayton, Ohio
(Fumigation Update 2010, Fig. 8), which were all fumigated for bed bug control.

17 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures

Fig. 8. Biltmore Towers (photos left to right); 18-story building, sealing garage entry,
bed bugs infesting a bed cover (photos by Stoy Hedges).
•

Tape-and-seal is used when fumigating one room or section of a building or one or
more units in a multi-unit building. Examples of this are the fumigation of; 18 units
within a 17-story condominium in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida for control of drywood
termites (Fumigation Update 1993), and the custom-made, decorative wood ceiling
of the Palm Beach County Convention Center for control of powderpost beetles
(Fumigation Update 2012).

e. Changes are required in some states' regulations to enable CAP to be implemented as
tested and intended.
Florida regulations require two trained persons be present at the initiation of aeration
(5E-14.108 (2), Florida Chapter 5E-14, Entomology, Pest Control Regulations). Texas
regulations require two trained persons be present during the initial aeration process
(Title 4, Part 1, Chapter 7H, Division 5, Rule 7.178d(2)0. CAP only requires one person
to initiate aeration.
f. Fumigators outside of California need time to learn how to use CAP.
This includes classroom and field training, and time to purchase and practice using the
equipment. Sales personnel and pest control companies selling fumigation also need to
be educated on this procedure. California regulators allowed fumigators six months to
adopt CAP after written procedure for CAP were finalized. This was after ten years of
work done by the California fumigation industry to develop CAP (see b above) which has
not occurred in any other state. CDPR allowed the existing aeration procedure at that
time (Tarpaulin Removal Aeration Plan, TRAP) and CAP to be conducted for six months
during the transition period. This transition period would not be possible if CAP was
required on the federal labeling because state regulators are required to enforce the
EPA product labeling.
g. Before implementing CAP, fumigation companies must conduct many time-consuming
assessments and notifications.
Review and revise information in many documents and media platforms:
18 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Contracts with consumers and companies subcontracting fumigations.
Property owner preparation lists, such as adding removal of items potentially
damaged by CAP (e.g., external lights, globes, cameras, and other features that
extend beyond the roof eaves).
Pricing.
Sales literature.
Web sites.
Advertising.
Company operating procedures.
Internal company training procedures on aeration.
Fumigation vehicle equipment inventory lists.
Scheduling for fumigations and employee deployment at fumigations.

Determine what additional supplies and equipment must be purchased:
•

•
•

Additional equipment because tarps are left on the structure for an additional day.
This includes more tarps, fans, clamps, sand snakes, water snakes, signs, secondary
locks, introduction hose, and chloropicrin trays.
New CAP ducting and inlets.
Additional fumigation vehicles to carry the equipment.

Determine who to educate and inform about CAP:
•

•

Educate fumigation company sales and office personnel, customers (realtors,
property management companies, school districts, etc.) and pest control companies
(i.e., prime contractors) about the new aeration procedures.
Inform insurance provider of the new aeration procedure, which requires more
equipment and longer time with tarps on the structure. (There possibly could more
damage to structural elements due to tarps constricting on the structure for at least
12 hours during CAP.)

h. State regulators need time to train their personnel on CAP and to change their
operations for CAP.
These changes include revising inspection forms, standard operating procedures,
enforcement response guidelines, judgements, fines, and information for consumers.
Financial limitations in state budgets are currently an issue due to on-going recovery
from Covid-19 pandemic.
i.

Sufficient supplies do not currently exist for all fumigation equipment needed to
implement CAP in all states.
This includes replacing existing aged inventory in all states plus doubling the fumigation
equipment used by fumigators outside of California. CAP requires specialized
equipment (CAP duct, duct cover, and inlet devices) and more of all fumigation

19 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
equipment (tarps, snakes, clamps, fans, introduction hoses, etc.). This is because this
equipment remains installed at the fumigated structure for two days rather than one
day. In addition, tarps age more rapidly and are replaced more often with CAP, because
they remain on each structure for at least two days, rather than one day, so there is
more deterioration from UV light and heat, and more abrasion from wind. Significant
disruptions in the supply chain have occurred due to trade tariffs and Covid-19 in the
past two years have affected the ability of fumigators to obtain fumigation equipment.
Supplies of materials needed to implement CAP, such as tarps, are limited and on back
order.
Therefore, CAP mitigation strategies are complex and will require more time to evaluate
and implement as part of the sulfuryl fluoride registration review process, and not as an
interim labeling change.

20 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
References Cited
Fumigation Update. 1992. Artwork Saved From Beetles. Spring Issue: 2. DowElanco,
Indianapolis, Indiana.
Fumigation Update. 1992. Giant Spot Fumigation Clears Kaleidoscope Exhibit. July: 4, 6.
DowElanco, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Fumigation Update. 1993. Successful Large-scale Fumigations Require Detailed Management.
August: 1-2. DowElanco, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Fumigation Update. 2007. Royal Fumigation Successfully Fumigates New Jersey Complex for
Bed Bugs. Vol 3: 1-2. Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Fumigation Update. 2010. Record-setting Bed Bug Fumigation. Vol 1: 1-3. Dow AgroSciences,
Indianapolis, Indiana.
Fumigation Update. 2012. An Unconventional Fumigation – A powderpost beetle infestation in
a convention center requires creativity. Vol. 1: 1-2. Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Miller, D.M., and M. L. Fisher. 2008. Bed bug (Hemiptera: Cimicidae) response to fumigation
670 using sulfuryl fluoride, pp. 123-127. In Robinson, W.H and D. Bajomi (eds.) Proceedings of
the 671 Sixth International Conference on Urban Pests. July 13-16, 2008. Budapest Hungary.
Thoms, E. and R. Mensing. 2006. Use of Vikane gas fumigant for Controlling Structural and
Household Pests Infesting Unique Structures with Unique Contents at the University of Florida,
Gainesville. pp. 70-73. In Sutphin, T., R. Cartwright, and R. Houseman (eds.) Proceedings of the
2006 National Conference on Urban Entomology, May 21-24, 2006. Raleigh Durham, North
Carolina.
Thoms, E. M., R. E. Subieta, and E. Hobelmann. 1998. Preserving a View of the Past, Fumigation
rids Bonnet House of drywood termites. PCO Magazine, May: 30-33.

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
Appendix I
Members of the Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Convened by Douglas Products to Develop Comments for Submission to EPA

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Members:
Heidi Aguilar, Branch Manager, Your Way Fumigation, Anaheim, CA
John Munoz, President, First Class Fumigation, San Jose, CA
John Sansone, President, Cardinal Professional Products, Anaheim, CA
Jon Montalbo, Owner, Aloha Termite & Pest Control, Wahiawa, HI
Lee Whitmore, President, Quality Pest Services, Anaheim, CA
Nate Tamialis, Regional Director – West, Veseris, Commerce, CA
Sean Brantley, Vice President, Emory Brantley & Sons Termite and Pest Control Inc., Pinellas
Park, FL
Shannon Sked, Director, Western Fumigation, Lester, PA
David Moore, Manager of Technical Services, Dodson Brothers Exterminating Co. Inc.,
Lynchburg, VA
Suzanne Graham, Director of Government Affairs, Massey Services, Orlando, FL, and President,
Florida Pest Management Association
Travis Swope, President/CEO, Griffin Pest Management, Santa Ana, CA
Greg Lohman, President, Above and Beyond Pest Control, Lake Worth, FL
Frank Dowling, Vice President, Hulett Environmental Services, West Palm Beach, FL
Chris Reardon, Executive Director, Pest Control Operators of California, West Sacramento, CA
Hume Ross, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington D.C.
Tracy Heinzman, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington D.C.
Ellen Thoms, President, EMT Consulting LLC, Gainesville, FL
Heather Kern, Commercial Leader, Douglas Products, Liberty, MO
Wes Otani, National Sales Leader, Douglas Products, Liberty, MO
Tim McPherson, Director of Regulatory Affairs/R&D, Douglas Products, Liberty, MO
Barb Nead-Nylander, Technical Expert, Douglas Products, Liberty, MO

30 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
Appendix II.
172.802 - Components of a security plan (Title 49: Transportation
Part 172—Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials
Communications, Emergency Response Information, Training Requirements and Security
Plans, Subpart I—Safety and Security Plans).
(a) The security plan must include an assessment of transportation security risks for shipments
of the hazardous materials listed in §172.800, including site-specific or location-specific risks
associated with facilities at which the hazardous materials listed in §172.800 are prepared for
transportation, stored, or unloaded incidental to movement, and appropriate measures to
address the assessed risks. Specific measures put into place by the plan may vary
commensurate with the level of threat at a particular time. At a minimum, a security plan must
include the following elements:
(1) Personnel security. Measures to confirm information provided by job applicants hired
for positions that involve access to and handling of the hazardous materials covered by the
security plan. Such confirmation system must be consistent with applicable Federal and
State laws and requirements concerning employment practices and individual privacy.
(2) Unauthorized access. Measures to address the assessed risk that unauthorized persons
may gain access to the hazardous materials covered by the security plan or transport
conveyances being prepared for transportation of the hazardous materials covered by the
security plan.
(3) En route security. Measures to address the assessed security risks of shipments of
hazardous materials covered by the security plan en route from origin to destination,
including shipments stored incidental to movement.
(b) The security plan must also include the following:
(1) Identification by job title of the senior management official responsible for overall
development and implementation of the security plan;
(2) Security duties for each position or department that is responsible for implementing the
plan or a portion of the plan and the process of notifying employees when specific elements
of the security plan must be implemented; and
(3) A plan for training hazmat employees in accordance with §172.704 (a)(4) and (a)(5) of
this part.
(c) The security plan, including the transportation security risk assessment developed in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, must be in writing and must be retained for as
long as it remains in effect. The security plan must be reviewed at least annually and revised
31 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
and/or updated as necessary to reflect changing circumstances. The most recent version of the
security plan, or portions thereof, must be available to the employees who are responsible for
implementing it, consistent with personnel security clearance or background investigation
restrictions and a demonstrated need to know. When the security plan is updated or revised,
all employees responsible for implementing it must be notified and all copies of the plan must
be maintained as of the date of the most recent revision.
(d) Each person required to develop and implement a security plan in accordance with this
subpart must maintain a copy of the security plan (or an electronic file thereof) that is
accessible at, or through, its principal place of business and must make the security plan
available upon request, at a reasonable time and location, to an authorized official of the
Department of Transportation or the Department of Homeland Security.

32 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
Appendix III.
Department of Transportation Requirement
for Hazmat Employee Training (49 CFR § 172.700 HM-232).
(a) Hazmat employee training must include the following:
(1) General awareness/familiarization training. Each hazmat employee shall be provided
general awareness/familiarization training designed to provide familiarity with the
requirements of this subchapter, and to enable the employee to recognize and identify
hazardous materials consistent with the hazard communication standards of this subchapter.
(2) Function-specific training.
(i) Each hazmat employee must be provided function-specific training concerning
requirements of this subchapter, or exemptions or special permits issued under
subchapter A of this chapter, that are specifically applicable to the functions the employee
performs.
(ii) As an alternative to function-specific training on the requirements of this subchapter,
training relating to the requirements of the ICAO Technical Instructions and the IMDG
Code may be provided to the extent such training addresses functions authorized by
subpart C of part 171 of this subchapter.
(3) Safety training. Each hazmat employee shall receive safety training concerning (i) Emergency response information required by subpart G of part 172;
(ii) Measures to protect the employee from the hazards associated with hazardous
materials to which they may be exposed in the workplace, including specific measures the
hazmat employer has implemented to protect employees from exposure; and
(iii) Methods and procedures for avoiding accidents, such as the proper procedures for
handling packages containing hazardous materials.
(4) Security awareness training. Each hazmat employee must receive training that provides
an awareness of security risks associated with hazardous materials transportation and
methods designed to enhance transportation security. This training must also include a
component covering how to recognize and respond to possible security threats. New hazmat
employees must receive the security awareness training required by this paragraph within 90
days after employment.
(5) In-depth security training. Each hazmat employee of a person required to have a security
plan in accordance with subpart I of this part who handles hazardous materials covered by
the plan, performs a regulated function related to the hazardous materials covered by the
plan, or is responsible for implementing the plan must be trained concerning the security
plan and its implementation. Security training must include company security objectives,
organizational security structure, specific security procedures, specific security duties and
responsibilities for each employee, and specific actions to be taken by each employee in the
event of a security breach.

33 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
(b) OSHA, EPA, and other training. Training conducted by employers to comply with the hazard
communication programs required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the
Department of Labor (29 CFR 1910.120 or 1910.1200) or the Environmental Protection Agency
(40 CFR 311.1), or training conducted by employers to comply with security training programs
required by other Federal or international agencies, may be used to satisfy the training
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section to the extent that such training addresses the
training components specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Initial and recurrent training (1) Initial training. A new hazmat employee, or a hazmat employee who changes job
functions may perform those functions prior to the completion of training provided (i) The employee performs those functions under the direct supervision of a properly
trained and knowledgeable hazmat employee; and
(ii) The training is completed within 90 days after employment or a change in job function.
(2) Recurrent training. A hazmat employee must receive the training required by this subpart
at least once every three years. For in-depth security training required under paragraph (a)(5)
of this section, a hazmat employee must be trained at least once every three years or, if the
security plan for which training is required is revised during the three-year recurrent training
cycle, within 90 days of implementation of the revised plan.
(3) Relevant Training. Relevant training received from a previous employer or other source
may be used to satisfy the requirements of this subpart provided a current record of training
is obtained from hazmat employees' previous employer.
(4) Compliance. Each hazmat employer is responsible for compliance with the requirements
of this subchapter regardless of whether the training required by this subpart has been
completed.
(d) Recordkeeping. Each hazmat employer must create and retain a record of current training of
each hazmat employee, inclusive of the preceding three years, in accordance with this section
for as long as that employee is employed by that employer as a hazmat employee and for 90
days thereafter. A hazmat employer must make a hazmat employee's record of current training
available upon request, at a reasonable time and location, to an authorized official of the
Department of Transportation or of an entity explicitly granted authority to enforce the HMR.
The record must include:
(1) The hazmat employee's name;
(2) The most recent training completion date of the hazmat employee's training;
(3) A description, copy, or the location of the training materials used to meet the
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section;
(4) The name and address of the person providing the training; and
(5) Certification that the hazmat employee has been trained and tested, as required by this
subpart.
34 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
Appendix IV.
Timeline for development and implementation of California Aeration Plan (CAP) in California.
September 2000: The first field trial of an early version of CAP, called “STACK,” was conducted
by Dow AgroSciences in Maxwell, CA. STACK was conducted as part of a study evaluating
sulfuryl fluoride concentrations around structures during fumigation and aeration using current
labelled aeration procedures, Aeration Procedures 1 and 2.
June – Aug 2004: Dow AgroSciences evaluated CAP at single family residences and multi-story,
multi-unit buildings in CA.
Sept. 2004: First draft of proposed language for CAP was written with input from key
fumigators and Pest Control Operators of California (PCOC) members in CA.
Nov. 2004 – Feb. 2005: Dow AgroSciences evaluated CAP at single family residences in CA using
GLP procedures.
April and throughout 2005: Later drafts of CAP proposed language were written input from key
fumigators and PCOC members in CA.
July 2006: California Department of Pesticide Registration (CDPR) publishes, “Sulfuryl fluoride
(Vikane®) Rick Characterization Document, Health Risk Assessment.”
2006: Vikane® gas fumigant label required by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
be amended to lower worker and occupant exposure limit from 5 ppm to 1 ppm.
June 27, 2008: California Department of Pesticide Registration (CDPR) notified sulfuryl fluoride
registrants that it was placing sulfuryl fluoride products intended for structural fumigation into
reevaluation. As a requirement of the reevaluation, registrants were required to submit
monitoring data to demonstrate that aeration plans for structural fumigations are protective
of workers and homeowners to 1 ppm.
At this time, key members of the PCOC Fumigation Enforcement Committee and fumigation
experts at Dow AgroSciences began to formalize drafts of the proposed language for CAP for
review by the PCOC Executive Committee, three subcontract fumigator groups in San Diego,
southern California, and northern California, two County Agricultural Inspectors, and a CDPR
enforcement representative. As feedback on a draft version was received, revisions were
made, and subsequent drafts were again reviewed by these fumigation committees, groups,
and regulatory representatives.

35 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
September 24, 2008: In response to the CDPR reevaluation of sulfuryl fluoride products
intended for structural fumigation, Dow AgroSciences submitted research demonstrating that
new aeration procedure (CAP) provides protection to 1 ppm for homeowner reentry and
workers. The research was conducted November 2004 through February 2005 in single-family
residences, and documented in the report by Barnekow et al. 2006. "Sulfuryl Fluoride and
Chloropicrin Concentrations in Air During Fumigation, Aeration, and Post-Clearance of
Residential Structures," 1051 pages (MRID 48323101).
October 14, 2009: CDPR requested from the registrants of sulfuryl fluoride products intended
for structural fumigation additional aeration data for multistory and multiple dwelling units (i.e.
condominiums, townhouses, apartment complexes) for the reevaluation.
December 2009: The PCOC Board of Directors approved the proposed language for CAP with
the understanding that some minor issues remained to be satisfied, including getting gas
company agreement, fumigator training, development of specialized aeration equipment and a
necessary transition period.
April 14, 2010: PCOC submitted the proposed language for CAP to CDPR. CAP was developed
to address worker and bystander issues and would be used in lieu of the previously approved
TRAP plan. CAP was submitted under Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations Section
6780(c) 3 as a Fumigation Safety Program (Program). PCOC requested CAP be reviewed and
approved by the Director of CDPR.
PCOC identified the following issues that needed to be addressed prior to full adoption by
industry:
• Time for both classroom and field training. PCOC had scheduled classroom sessions
statewide to introduce CAP to fumigators. “Field training will be time consuming and
will require the cooperation of fumigators, distributors and the registrants of sulfuryl
fluoride.”
• Fumigators need to purchase additional tarps and equipment to implement the new
procedures as required by CAP. “The timing and financial constraints for tarp
manufacturers to produce all the material in a short period is substantial. Many tarp
orders are currently back ordered due to inadequate financing or material shortages.”
• CAP requires specialized aeration inlet and exhaust equipment that was being
developed.
PCOC requested an extension until September 1, 2010 for the fumigation industry to work
through the issues, adopt, and implement CAP. The industry did request that if additional
delays in the production of tarps and the specialized equipment occurred, they would request
an extension.

36 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
May 11, 2010: CDPR informed PCOC it approved CAP. CDPR cited in the letter, “We
understand that the transition to CAP-only fumigations is likely to take several months,
involving both financial and logistical investments by fumigation operators. For that reason,
use of the TRAP will be allowed until September 1, 2010. Any extension will be dependent on a
demonstration of due diligence on the part of operators to comply.”
In the research trials, Dow AgroSciences used polyethylene tubing for the duct and various
improvised materials, including a bicycle rim, to create the inlet devices. These materials
validated the proof-of-concept of CAP, but were not suitable for fumigation industry use.
Therefore, when CDPR approved CAP, California fumigation equipment distributors and
suppliers began to intensively develop and evaluate configurations of the duct, duct cover, and
inlet devices for CAP that would be durable, easy to install, and meet the requirements of CAP.
May 2010 : John Sansone wrote an article for the PCOC “Voice” about CAP. The article included
the following information:
• “The necessary research to develop and support CAP has spanned almost a decade and
involved significant work by Dow AgroSciences, Pest Control Operators of California and
the pest management industry in California.”
• “At least eight California fumigation companies, all members of PCOC, worked with
technical experts from Dow AgroSciences to test and refine the CAP procedures on
actual fumigations over the course of many years.”
• Writing the CAP language involved “the executive committee of PCOC, the PCOC
fumigation and fumigation enforcement committees, Branch 1 fumigators, Branch 3
inspectors, the three fumigator groups in California – San Diego, southern California and
northern California, distributors and sulfuryl fluoride registrants.” The process to write
CAP itself required at least five draft versions.
• “For fumigators, CAP involves more labor, the need to invest in more equipment and, in
some cases, more engineering to accomplish the aeration procedure.”
In California, the gas companies would not restore gas and re-light appliances until the third day
of the fumigation, which was the day after tarps were removed using Aeration Procedures 1 or
2 in conjunction with TRAP (the Tarpaulin Removal Aeration Plan required by CDPR for
fumigation worker protection). Using CAP, gas company workers would still restore gas and
re-light appliances on the third day of the fumigation, but this was the same day that the tarps
are removed. Dow AgroSciences experts reviewed with
•
•

PCOC and the gas company representatives the data that demonstrated the
effectiveness of CAP, so the gas companies would accept CAP.
The initial transition period was four months. During the transition period fumigators
could use either TRAP or CAP.

June 8, 2010: In response to the CDPR request for additional data, Dow AgroSciences
submitted research demonstrating that CAP will reduce sulfuryl fluoride levels from multiple
37 | P a g e

Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
dwelling buildings to 1 ppm. The research was conducted June through August 2004 and
documented in the report be Barnekow, D. 2010. "Sulfuryl Fluoride and Chloropicrin
Concentrations in Air During Aeration and Post-Clearance of Residential and Multi-Unit
Structures Observed During the Development of the California Aeration Plan," 251 pages (MRID
51136601).
August 2010: CDPR extended the transition period for CAP by an additional two months, from
September 1 to November 1, 2010. PCOC continued to work with CDPR to revise the language
for CAP based on fumigator experience during the transition phase.
October 7, 2010: The date on a revised version of CAP accepted by CDPR.
November 1, 2010: TRAP and earlier versions of CAP (predating the version dated Oct. 7, 2010)
were no longer acceptable by CDPR.
May 9, 2011: A document reviewing Frequently Asked Questions about CAP was distributed by
CDPR to the County Agricultural Commissioners. The document was developed to provide
Country Agricultural inspectors with guidance on situations they observed with the
implementation of CAP that were not addressed in the current CAP language.
In addition, some fumigators were using ducts and inlet devices of a size or construction
material and/or installing these components in manner that compromised the efficiency of
CAP; however, these parameters were not clearly defined in CAP. To ensure CAP was
conducted as intended by the testing and to aid in regulatory compliance, key members of the
PCOC Fumigation Enforcement Committee and fumigation experts at Dow AgroSciences revised
CAP language. Drafts of CAP “II” were reviewed and revised with input from fumigation
committees, groups, and regulatory representatives as previously described.
February 19, 2013: CAP II version was accepted by CDPR. This version contained many
revisions in describing CAP procedures and equipment to further enhance its effectiveness
based on fumigator experience and observations by County Ag inspectors.

38 | P a g e

Douglas Products

www.douglasproducts.com

August 22, 2022
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Docket Center
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0150
Via Regulations.gov
Re: EPA, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal and Request for Comment; Soil and NonSoil Fumigants Mitigation, 87 Fed. Reg. 37,856 (June 24, 2022); EPA ICR No. 2451.03,OMB Control No. 2070–
0197
Douglas Products (Douglas) is submitting these comments in response to the Environmental Protection
Agency’s (“EPA’s”) request for comment on an Information Collection Request (“ICR”) that EPA is planning to
submit to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”). The ICR, entitled: ‘‘Soil and Non-Soil Fumigant Risk
Mitigation’’ and identified by EPA ICR No. 2451.03 and OMB Control No. 2070–0197, represents the renewal
of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2023. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for
review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the information collection that are summarized in a Federal Register notice issued on June 24, 2022.
Among other things, EPA seeks comments that will “[e]nhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected,” and/or “minimize the burden” of the ICR. 87 Fed. Reg. at 37,856. Douglas first
addresses these items (by referring to prior comments it has submitted which, if addressed, would accomplish
these objectives) before turning to a discussion of some portions of EPA’s estimates for the burden of the
information collection activities that do not fully reflect the amount of time and expense required to comply
with the ICR.
Omission of Impact of EPA’s Proposed Mitigation Measures for Sulfuryl Fluoride
The current ICR Supporting Statement does not account for the information collection burdens associated
with EPA’s proposed mitigation measures for sulfuryl fluoride products registered for residential fumigation.
The ICR Supporting Statement does acknowledge that, “In May 2021, the Agency (EPA) proposed mitigation
measures in the “Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-entry Mitigation Measures Memorandum” in response to
the OIG recommendations.” Sulfuryl fluoride registrants, fumigators, pest control associations, University
educators and researchers, and regulators submitted over 130 detailed comments regarding this

Page 2
August 22, 2022
memorandum and the proposed mitigation measures to the EPA docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0136) by
September 23, 2022 deadline. In particular, among other response documents, Douglas submitted an
extensive 38-page “Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures” by a Sulfuryl
Fluoride Advisory Panel consisting of 21 members with technical, legal, and/or regulatory expertise in
structural fumigation. The Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel’s Assessment outlined many parts of the proposed
mitigation by EPA which are unnecessary, and it is enclosed with this letter in response to this ICR (Enclosure
1). The majority of comments submitted by other parties supported or were consistent with the conclusions
of the Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel in the enclosed document.
At this time, EPA has not responded to the comments provided by Douglas or the Advisory Panel in response
to EPA’s Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-entry Mitigation Measures Memorandum referenced above. EPA’s
response to these comments could materially impact the burden associated with the ICR, and therefore the
appropriate burdens for EPA to communicate to OMB in connection with the renewal of the ICR. Issues that
were subject to unresolved comments include Fumigation Management Plans (FMPs), warning signs,
stewardship training, and the California Aeration Plan (CAP). The Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel
recommended simplification of requirements for FMPs and warning signs based on current state regulations
and clarification of who must attend stewardship training. Because CAP was developed specifically for use in
California conditions and is a complex procedure, the Advisory Panel recommended any revisions in aeration
procedures be part of the registration review process and not enacted as interim mitigation procedures. Per
the ICR Supporting Statement, “EPA anticipates publishing the Final Interim Re-entry Mitigation Measures
Memorandum, describing necessary label changes for sulfuryl fluoride products which must be implemented
by the registrants within 60 days after publication, in the Fall of 2022.” Since EPA intends to publish its final
mitigation measures for sulfuryl fluoride before the existing ICR is renewed on January 31, 2023, it is
appropriate that the EPA proposed mitigation measures for sulfuryl fluoride are reviewed for compliance with
the PRA.
Registrant Burden Estimates are Inadequate
With regard to the current burden estimates, the estimate provided for non-soil fumigants in Table 16 of the
Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request (ICR) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA),
regulations.gov ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0150-0006 (the “Supporting Statement”) for registrant cost to
“Develop/Maintain/Disseminate training materials (either electronically, on paper, or in person)” of $15,212
per year is too low because, at a minimum, the estimate does not include the following considerations:
1.
The estimated hours for Douglas to update its existing stewardship training programs is currently
about 250 hours per year, not 160 hours per year. Multiple initial and annual stewardship programs must be
reviewed and revised every year prior to training for Vikane® and ProFume® gas fumigants (Trademark of
Douglas Pruducts). For Vikane alone, there are three 2-hour annual stewardship training programs, one each
for California, Florida, and other states, that must be updated each year. The American Society of Training and
Development (now ATD – Association of Talent Development) estimated the time to create each hour of in-

Page 3
August 22, 2022
person training ranges from 43-185 hours to develop one hour of instructor-led training:
https://www.td.org/newsletters/learning-circuits/time-to-develop-one-hour-of-training-2009. Therefore, the
estimate of 250 hours in consistent with industry standards for development of instructor-led training of this
complexity. Douglas develops instructor-led training because it is documented by research to be the more
effective than on-line training for participants to learn and retain information. 1
2.
The estimated cost per hour for Ph.D. entomologists employed by Douglas to develop and revise
stewardship training is 3-fold greater than the hourly estimate by EPA for technical personnel in Table 16. In
addition, Douglas also contracts experts in graphics design and adult learning to assist the Ph.D. entomologists
with revising the stewardship training programs each year. The hours and cost of these contractors, which are
important for the content and delivery of training, are not included in bullet point 1 above or 2.
3.
In 2021, Douglas field fumigation personnel conducted more than 45 initial and 380 annual
stewardship training sessions for fumigators who use Vikane® and ProFume® gas fumigants. Because training
is conducted in-person, Douglas estimates it requires 6 hours per annual stewardship training session and 10
hours per initial stewardship training session to include preparation, paperwork, travel, and conducting the
training. Travel expenses vary and include mileage, airfare, hotel, and meals.
Therefore, based on adjustments reviewed in #1-3 above, the cost in 2021 for Douglas to
“Develop/Maintain/Disseminate” stewardship training for fumigators who use Vikane and ProFume was about
60-fold greater than the estimate in Table 16.
The implementation of the extensive proposed interim mitigation procedures by EPA for sulfuryl fluoride
products (registered for residential fumigation, such as Vikane) would likely require at least 2 hours of new
stewardship training. Douglas estimates this will require about 100 hours of the Ph.D. entomologist, plus
contracted experts in contracts experts in graphics design and adult learning, and will take at least 5 months to
complete. The cost to develop this training could be 2-fold the cost cited in Table 16 of the Supporting
Statement to “Develop/Maintain/Disseminate” training programs. This estimate does not include the cost to
provide the instructor-led training sessions. If EPA agrees to the recommendations of Douglas and the Sulfuryl
Fluoride Advisory Panel about certain changes to the proposed mitigation measures, as discussed in Enclosure
1, this training could be provided in less than one hour and require half the time to develop.
Ideally, the training on any new interim mitigation procedures to be required by EPA would occur in
conjunction with the annual stewardship training for Vikane. Creation, production, and distribution of the
annual stewardship training for Vikane requires six months to complete and occurs May through October each
year. Conducting annual stewardship training for fumigators occurs November through May each year before
peak fumigation season for Vikane. It is also a requirement in Florida regulations that fumigators must
complete annual stewardship training for sulfuryl fluoride products registered for residential fumigation by
June 1 each calendar year. If the training on the new interim mitigation procedures to be required by EPA
cannot be developed and conducted in conjunction with the annual stewardship training for Vikane, this will

Muljana, P. S., and Luo, T. (2019). Factors contributing to student retention in online learning and recommended strategies for improvement: A
systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 18, 19-57. doi:10.28945/4182

Page 4
August 22, 2022
add significant cost for Douglas. It is estimated that about 200 sessions will need to be conducted, at a cost
that is more than 25-fold greater than cost cited in Table 16 to “Develop/Maintain/Disseminate” training
programs. Therefore, Douglas requests that EPA provide registrants sufficient time to 1) develop training for
new mitigation procedures, 2) conduct this training in conjunction with the annual stewardship training, and
3) release the product with the new labeling after the training has been completed. It is likely that EPA will
release its final interim proposed mitigation procedures for Vikane in October 2022 or later, after the 2023
stewardship training program for Vikane® gas fumigant has been completed and distributed, and training
using this program initiated. Therefore, Douglas requests that EPA permit registrants time to conduct training
on new interim mitigation procedures during the 2024 stewardship training cycle and release the new labeling
on product cylinders in Spring of 2024 after the stewardship training has been completed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Douglas is concerned that the current ICR Supporting Statement significantly underestimates
the actual burdens placed on sulfuryl fluoride registrants, especially for sulfuryl fluoride products registered
for residential fumigation. Prior to submitting the final ICR to OMB, EPA should decide which comments from
the Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel, Douglas, and others on its interim mitigation proposal it will implement,
and then update the ICR burden analysis to reflect those revisions so that the ICR is appropriately scoped. Per
requirements of the PRA, the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected should be
maximized while the burdens are minimized. Douglas is available to the EPA to discuss the effects that
adopting specific changes in the interim mitigation proposal would have on a the final ICR burden analysis.
Best regards,

Tim McPherson
Global Regulatory and Research Leader
Douglas Products

Enclosure 1: Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation
Measures

Protecting Your Environment Since 1945

August 22, 2022
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Docket Center
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0150
Via Regulations.gov
Re: EPA ICR No. 2451.03 and OMB Control No. 2070–0197
The Florida Pest Management Association (FPMA), the representative for professional structural pest management
companies in Florida, is submitting this letter the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA’s”) request for comment on
for the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) that the EPA is planning to submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(“OMB”). The ICR, entitled: ‘‘Soil and Non-Soil Fumigant Risk Mitigation’’ and identified by EPA ICR No. 2451.03 and OMB
Control No. 2070–0197, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2023. Before
submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), EPA is soliciting
comments on specific aspects of the information collection that are summarized in a Federal Register notice issued on
June 24, 2022. To further assist EPA in understanding the structural fumigation industry in Florida, FMPA is also
submitting the “Consultation Questionnaire for the Non-Soil Fumigant Risk Mitigation” (see Enclosure 1).
The FPMA represents over 4000 licensed pest management locations in Florida employing more than 7000 certified
applicators and over 20,000 registered and trained technicians along with nearly 100,000 workers. Florida has the largest
pest management industry in the country, accounting for 33% of U.S. pest management companies and revenues. FPMA
members protect the homes, businesses, schools, food, lawns, and property investments of over 20 million Floridians
and over 100 million annual visitors. Our members perform over 70,000 structural fumigations per year (second in the
nation to California).
The current ICR Supporting Statement does not account for the information collection burdens associated with
EPA’s proposed mitigation measures for sulfuryl fluoride products registered for residential fumigation. The ICR
Supporting Statement does acknowledge that, “[i]n May 2021, the Agency (EPA) proposed mitigation measures in the
‘Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-entry Mitigation Measures Memorandum’ in response to the OIG
recommendations.” FPMA submitted extensive comments regarding this memorandum and the proposed mitigation
measures to the EPA docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0136) by September 23, 2022 deadline (see Enclosures 2 and 3). In
addition, seven PCOC members participated on a Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel which drafted a 38-page document
“Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures” which was submitted by Douglas
Products to this docket (see Enclosure 4). These three submissions outlined many parts of the proposed mitigation by
EPA which are unnecessary and/or unduly burdensome, and are enclosed with this letter in response to this ICR. 1

Enclosures 2, 3, and 4 are also available on Regulations.gov with Comment IDs: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0136-0216; -0217; and -0327
(Exhibit A), respectively.
1

OMB Control No.: 2070-0197; EPA No.: 2451.02
August 22, 2022
Page 2
At this time, EPA has not formally responded to the submitted comments by FPMA including those that affect the PRA
and the burdens calculated in the ICR Supporting Statement, such as Fumigation Management Plans, warning signs,
stewardship training, and the California Aeration Plan (CAP). The ICR Supporting Statement acknowledges, “EPA
anticipates publishing the Final Interim Re-entry Mitigation Measures Memorandum, describing necessary label
changes for sulfuryl fluoride products which must be implemented by the registrants within 60 days after publication,
in the Fall of 2022.” Since EPA intends to publish its final mitigation measures for sulfuryl fluoride before the existing
ICR is renewed on January 31, 2023, it is appropriate that the EPA proposed mitigation measures for sulfuryl fluoride
are reviewed prior to that time and the ICR is amended to reflect the burdens associated with these new mitigation
procedures.
With regard to the current burden estimates, the estimate provided for non-soil fumigants in Tables 12 through 14
for hourly cost for Certified Applicator (Certified Operator and Special Identification [SPID] cardholder in Florida) and
Pesticide Handler (Second trained person - Fumigation Identification [FID] cardholder in Florida) are inadequate. In
Florida, the hourly cost for a Certified Operator or SPID is about $50.00/hour and for a second trained personal (FID) is
about $40.00/hour. These estimates include wages, benefits, workman’s compensation insurance, and costs to
maintain employee certifications.
In conclusion, the current ICR Supporting Statement significantly underestimates the burdens placed on fumigators in
Florida who use sulfuryl fluoride products registered for residential fumigation because the EPA proposed mitigation measures
in the “Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-entry Mitigation Measures Memorandum” were not considered. FPMA encourages
EPA Prior to submitting the final ICR to OMB, EPA should decide which comments from the FPMA, the Sulfuryl Fluoride
Advisory Panel, the registrants, and others on its interim mitigation proposal it will implement, and then update the
burden analysis in the ICR Supporting Statement.
I encourage EPA to contact FPMA if there are questions about information in any of the documents FPMA submitted to
this docket, or for assistance with the ICR burden analysis for any proposed mitigation procedures. Thank you for this
opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,

Sean Brantley
Florida Pest Management Association
Government Affairs Committee
Enclosure 1: FPMA response to Consultation Questionnaire for the Non-Soil Fumigant Risk Mitigation
Enclosure 2: FPMA response to EPA Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures on Sulfuryl Fluoride
Enclosure 3: FPMA request for a waiver from Fumigation Management Plan (FMP) requirements
Enclosure 4: Sulfuryl fluoride Advisory Panel Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

June 30, 2022

Consultation Questionnaire for the “Soil and Non-Soil Fumigant Risk Mitigation” Renewal ICR
OMB Control No.: 2070-0197; EPA No.: 2451.03
Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0150
Representative Consulted
Name: Florida Pest Management Association (FPMA)
Questions Related to Non-Soil Fumigants
(1)

Publicly Available Data
•

Is the information (e.g., Fumigant Management Plans (FMPs) or training materials) that the Agency
requests available from any public source, or already collected by another office at EPA or by another
agency? (Several fumigants are still in the registration review process, so mitigation is subject to
change.)
Answer: Refer to the cover letter, and Enclosures 2, 3, and 4 submitted by FPMA to Docket ID No.:
EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0150. A detailed description of the fumigation logs required in Florida is provided
below.

•

If yes, where can you find the information? (Does your answer indicate a true duplication, or does
the input indicate that certain data elements are available, but that they do not meet our data needs
very well?)
Answer: Refer to the cover letter, and Enclosures 2, 3, and 4 submitted by FPMA to Docket ID No.:
EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0150. A detailed description of the fumigation logs required in Florida is
provided below.

(2)

Frequency of Collection
•

Can you record, maintain, and distribute the information less frequently and still produce the same
outcome?
Answer: Refer to the cover letter and Enclosures 2, 3, and 4 submitted by FPMA to Docket ID No.:
EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0150. A detailed description of the fumigation logs required in Florida is
provided below.

•

On average, how many non-soil fumigant applications are performed in any given year?
Answer: In Florida, about 70,000 fumigations using sulfuryl fluoride are conducted annually.
Based on a survey conducted by Douglas Products in 2018, in Florida on average about 745
structures are fumigated each year by each fumigation company, including each branch location of
a multi-branch company.

•

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

June 30, 2022

assumed that every non-soil fumigant application requires a new FMP (except EtO and sulfuryl
fluoride which are still in registration review; therefore, requirements for EtO and sulfuryl fluoride
are subject to change), and that the estimated burden hours are the same for all non-soil fumigant
applications.
o

If applicators typically perform subsequent applications at the same site, can you provide a
rough estimate of how frequently these subsequent applications occur (e.g. about 25%, 50%,
etc. of total applications)? Please list the type(s)/site(s) of these non-soil applications.
Answer: There are two reasons for refumigating a structure for drywood termites. The first
is that the fumigation did not achieve a sufficient dosage of sulfuryl fluoride to control the
drywood termites. In this situation, the refumigation rate is about 1 - 3%
The second reason for refumigating a structure is that it is reinfested by drywood termites
after the fumigation. The fumigation provides remedial control, but does not leave a
pesticide residue to prevent pest reinfestation. For drywood termites, it takes on average 510 years for new colonies, started by alates (winged reproductive king and queen), to grow
to a size to produce alates. Drywood termite alates are a very visible sign to building
occupants of a drywood termite infestation. This refumigation rate averages about 5% per
year. Unless a fumigation warranty is in place, the property owner/homeowner usually will
get bids from several fumigation companies that may not include the fumigation company
that previously fumigated the structure. Prior to treatment for wood-destroying organisms,
including fumigation for drywood termites, requires the pest control company to issue a
written contract (Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 5E-14.105). The property owner at
the time of each renewal, if a previous renewal was purchased, has the option of extending
the warranty annually after the first year for no less than 4 additional years (Florida
Administrative Code, Chapter 5E-14.105 (3)(b)). Some structures can be fumigated more
frequently if there is a real estate transaction. Others are fumigated less frequently if the
same owner retains the structure. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that the same fumigator would
refumigate a structure for this second reason (reinfestation) within an interval that would
permit any meaningful reduction in the time need to prepare an FMP.
Therefore, for both reasons stated above, in total about 7% of previously fumigated
structures are refumigated each year.

How much time does it take to complete the requirements identified in this ICR for the either
a one-time application or an initial application? For subsequent applications? Please list the
type(s)/site(s) of these non-soil applications.
Answer: In Florida, the Certified Operation (CO) or Special identification Cardholder (SPID)
are required to use a Fumigation Log (FDACS-13000, Rev. 5/21) when onsite at a fumigation
using a residential fumigant (Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 5E-14.142(3)). An
alternative fumigation log may be used only if it incorporates all information required to be
recorded in the FDACS Fumigation Log. The required information must be recorded in the
fumigation log form by two working days after the date of fumigant application. The log
form for each fumigation takes about 30-40 minutes per fumigation site to complete
throughout the fumigation process, and requires the following information be recorded:
1. Name and license number of the fumigation employee responsible for the fumigant
application;

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

June 30, 2022

2. Name of the fumigation employee(s) who applied the fumigant;
3. Date and time of the following: fumigant introduction, start of aeration, completion
of aeration, and final testing for clearance;
4. Detailed information relating to each label required clearance period including names
of employees and personnel involved and start and stop times;
6. Total volume (cubic feet or other appropriate units) of the fumigated space;
7. Brand name or EPA registration number of the pesticide product applied; and,
8. Total amount in pounds or ounces, of fumigant and warning agent applied.•
Because the above information is specific to the conditions, timing, and personnel for each
fumigation, there is very little time saved in filling out the fumigation log form again if the
fumigation is repeated at the same structure.
EPA is requesting the following additional information be recorded in a Fumigation
management Plan (FMP) which is not currently required in the Florida fumigation log.
• Posting signs - how many signs, indicate placement
• List credential numbers of crew members present during introduction of chloropicrin
(warning agent) and fumigant
• List phone numbers of crew members present during introduction of chloropicrin and
fumigant
• Dosing calculator used
• Relative humidity, number of fans, fan amps
• List credential numbers of crew members present during initiation of aeration
• List phone numbers of crew members present during initiation of aeration
• If monitored: location, equilibrium readings, interim readings, terminal readings,
hours elapsed between readings, actual HLT, correction information
• Clearance device: Information on the way the device was calibrated.
• Emergency preparedness/response measure: Provide information in case of an
emergency, including the hospital nearest to the site.
Information not required on the Florida fumigation log, but listed on the EPA proposed
FMP, is not critical to conducting the fumigation, provides no additional consumer or
worker protection or aids in the diagnosing of the cause of issues may arise during a
fumigation that result in an investigation, fine, and/or disciplinary actions. The specific
reason(s) why each bullet point of additional information requested by EPA is not required
for a fumigation log is described in Table 3 of Enclosure 4: Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride
Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures. FPMA submitted a waiver from the FMP
requirements within EPA’s proposed Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation
Measures (EPA-HQ_OPP-2009-0136-0216) (See Enclosure 3).
FPMA estimates that it will require an additional 20 minutes per fumigation log form to
document the additional information requested by EPA that is not currently required in the
Florida fumigation log. For 70,000 fumigations conducted annually in Florida, that
represents an additional 23,100 hours for the CO or SPID at an additional labor cost of
$1,155,000 for the industry (based on $50.00/hour). For a fumigation company, that
represents an additional 246 hours for the CO or SPID (based on 745 fumigations/year) at
an additional labor cost of $12,300. There would be no increase in cost to the Florida
structural fumigation industry if EPA waives the FMP requirements for Florida fumigators
as requested by FPMA.
3

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

(3)

June 30, 2022

Clarity of Instructions

The ICR is intended to account for the paperwork burdens associated with the requirements for certain fumigant
product users to develop FMPs, to develop or participate in fumigant-specific trainings when required, and to
provide certain information to decrease the likelihood of applicator, handler, and bystander exposure to
fumigants.
Based on the available instructions (fumigant labeling requirements, EPA guidances, etc.), is it clear
what is required? If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?
Answer: As previously described, the information that must be recorded for the Florida fumigation log
is clearly stated in Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 5E-14.142(3)(a) and in the Fumigation Log
template (FDACS-13000, Rev. 5/21). These requirements are well understood by the structural
fumigation industry.
Some of the additional information EPA is proposing to record in an FMP (i.e., fumigation log form) is
confusing as follows:
“Clearance device: Information on the way the device was calibrated” - For sulfuryl fluoride clearance
devices (SF-ExplorIR, CLIRcheck, FumiSpec Lo) which can only be serviced by authorized service
providers, the fumigator does not have this information (i.e., it is not in the User Manual).
“List credential numbers of crew members present during each phase of the fumigation” - “Credential
numbers" not standard terminology for fumigator licensing. Only the CO and SPID have a license
number. Other crew members do not have license numbers.
"Prior to fumigating, the certified applicator supervising the fumigation must verify that a site-specific
fumigation management plan (FMP) exists. The FMP is intended to ensure a safe and effective
fumigation. The certified applicator supervising the fumigation must ensure that the FMP is up-to-date
and applicable to the fumigation before it takes place." - This needs to be reworded because most of
the documentation required is recorded during the fumigation process, and not before the fumigation.
Soil and commodity fumigations are repeated at the same site and may be complex sites, such as food
processing facilities. In these cases, development of a site-specific FMP before the fumigation is useful.
In contrast, residential buildings and other non-industrial buildings are very similar in features that
would affect how the fumigation is conducted. If a fumigation using a residential fumigation is repeated
at a given building, it would typically occur years later as discussed in this questionnaire and is likely be
conducted by another fumigation company. Therefore, a site-specific FMP developed before the
fumigation is not necessary or useful for residential fumigants.
•

Do you understand that you are required to maintain records? How long you are required to maintain
these records?
Answer: Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 5E-14.142(3)(b) requires the fumigation log form be
retained for two years from the date of the fumigation.

•

While there no required forms associated with this process, EPA does provide sample FMP templates for
soil fumigants online (https://www.epa.gov/soil-fumigants).

OMB Control No. 2070-0197
•

June 30, 2022

Do you use them as a guide for completing the non-soil fumigant requirements, or have you
developed your own format?
Answer. The EPA sample FMP templates for soil fumigation are not relevant to structural
fumigation, and therefore are not useful as guides. As previously described, the
information that must be recorded for the Florida fumigation log is clearly stated in the
Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 5E-14.142(3)(a) and in the Fumigation Log template
(FDACS-13000, Rev. 5/21). Florida fumigators may use an alternative fumigation log form
only if it incorporates all information required to be recorded in the current Fumigation Log,
FDACS-13000, Rev. 05/21.

•

If you have developed your own format, why did you choose to do so?
Answer: Most Florida fumigators use a log form as formatted in the template (FDACS13000, Rev. 5/21).

•

Without an available template specification created for non-soil fumigants, has it been
difficult to develop your own format to comply with the non-soil fumigant labels?
Answer: The labeling for sulfuryl fluoride products registered for fumigation of residential
structures do not currently require an FMP. The template (FDACS-13000, Rev. 5/21) for the
fumigation log provides information required to be recorded for each fumigation per the
Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 5E-14.142(3)(a).

•

Do you believe that an EPA-developed template for non-soil fumigants will help to reduce
burden?
Answer: No, not for Florida. The template (FDACS-13000, Rev. 5/21) for the fumigation log
provides information required to be recorded for each fumigation per the Florida
Administrative Code, Chapter 5E-14.142(3)(a). The template is well understood by the
Florida structural fumigation industry.

(4)
•

Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping
Are you completing the FMPs and maintaining records by paper or electronically?
Answer: The majority of the fumigation companies in Florida use a paper log form. A small number of
companies use electronic devices, such as tablets or iPads, to record data on the log forms in the field.

•

If you are using paper, is it possible for you to keep records electronically?
Answer: Yes. Florida regulations permit electronic or digital copies of the original log form are allowed,
provided the copy(s) are readily available at the time requested (e.g. office records check by the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Agricultural Environmental Services) for
inspection and copying, per Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 5E-14.142(3)(b).
•

If yes, why have you chosen to complete the requirements by paper?
Answer: Paper is inexpensive, reliable, and easy to use. Paper does not require additional cost to
purchase equipment, software, and training for employees. Paper does not malfunction or lose
5

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

June 30, 2022

battery power.



If no, what obstacles have you experienced that prevent you from completing the requirements
electronically?
Answer: Electronic devices to use in the field and supporting software add significant expense.
The standard devices, such as tablets, are not robust to field conditions, including high heat, dirt,
and rough handling. Users must be trained to use these devices. The devices can also fail, losing
important recorded data. The software currently customized for use by pest control companies to
integrate these log forms into business operations is very expensive for a small company to
purchase.

If you are completing the requirements electronically, in what format (e.g., Word, Excel, online, etc.)?

•

Answer: A PDF form with fillable fields on tablet, iPad, or other electronic device is currently used by
a few Florida companies for recording information in the fumigation log forms.
•

Has electronic recordkeeping reduced your paperwork burdens? If so, please explain.
Answer: As previously discussed, based on how much new information is required in a fumigation
log form when a structure is refumigated, electronic recordkeeping does not significantly reduce the
paperwork burden.

•

What benefits would electronic reporting and recordkeeping bring you in terms of burden reduction or
greater efficiency in compiling the information?
Answer: The potential benefits of electronic record keeping is less physical storage space is required, and
ease of data collection and completion. In addition, if the fumigation log form is integrated into business
operations software, it would be easier to conduct quality control reviews, evaluate crew performance, and
other business assessments.

(5)

Burden and Costs
•

An average fumigation truck would have a crew of 3-4 personnel and could install tarps and introduce fumigant into
three standard size single-family residences per day. Because CAP requires tarps to remain on the structure for an
additional night (i.e. at least 12 hours), additional equipment must be purchased for each fumigation truck for one day of
fumigation installations.
1

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

June 30, 2022

days, one each for the fumigation and aeration periods, rather than one day with the current label
aeration procedures in which tarps are removed during the initiation of aeration. Also, if the current
fumigation trucks are not configured the carry the large CAP ducts, CAP vents, and extra fans, a smaller
truck, at an average cost of $80,000, may need to be purchased to transport these additional fumigation
materials to and from each fumigation site.
CAP duct and cover need modification and evaluation for high rain and high wind environments, based
on field trials conducted by one sulfuryl fluoride registrant, Douglas Products, in Florida. The need for
these modifications were discussed in Sulfuryl fluoride Advisory Panel Assessment (Enclosure 4) as
follows:
“Field trials of CAP in Florida conducted by Douglas Products, with the assistance of licensed fumigation
companies, have confirmed that rain events can interfere with the proper functioning of CAP
equipment. During the fumigation, rainwater can accumulate and depress the CAP duct cover, making
the cover difficult to remove as intended when the fumigator at ground level pulls a strap to peel back
the cover. During aeration, rain can accumulate in the bottom of the duct, restricting airflow through
the duct and potentially interfering with the duct fan operation. Therefore, the CAP duct and duct cover
need to be modified and evaluated for use in high rain conditions.” The time required to develop and
evaluate modifications in this CAP equipment is currently not known.
Additional equipment costs are only a portion of the additional expenditures that CAP would require.
Other types of increased costs are discussed below in response to the question, “Are there other costs
that should be accounted for that may have been missed?”
•

How many non-soil fumigant applications are made annually? Please list the fumigant(s) and site(s)
covered by your estimate.
Answer: As previously discussed, in Florida, about 70,000 fumigations using sulfuryl fluoride are
conducted annually. Based on a survey conducted by Douglas Products in 2018, in Florida on average
about 745 structures are fumigated each year by each fumigation company, including each branch
location of a multi-branch company. These fumigations are conducted with sulfuryl fluoride products
registered for residential fumigation (Vikane® gas fumigant [Douglas Products] and Zythor® [Ensystex]).
Sites fumigated with these sulfuryl fluoride products include dwellings (including mobile homes and
multi-unit residences), buildings (such as offices, stores, schools, churches, museums, medical and
research facilities, restaurants, municipal buildings, theaters, hotels and motels, etc.) construction
materials, furnishings (household effects), shipping containers and vehicles including automobiles,
buses, surface ships, passenger railcars, and recreational vehicles (aircraft are excluded).
• How long does it take to complete a non-soil fumigant FMP? Please list the fumigant(s) and site(s)
covered by your estimate.
Answer: As previously discussed, In Florida, the Certified Operation (CO) or Special identification
Cardholder (SPID) are required to use a Fumigation Log (FDACS-13000, Rev. 5/21) when onsite at a
fumigation using a residential fumigant (Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 5E-14.142(3)). The log
form for each fumigation takes about 30-40 minutes per fumigation site to complete throughout the
fumigation process, and requires the following information be recorded:
As previously discussed, FPMA estimates that it will require an additional 20 minutes per fumigation log
form to document the additional information requested by EPA that is not currently required in the
7

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

June 30, 2022

Florida fumigation log. For 70,000 fumigations conducted annually in Florida, that represents an
additional 23,100 hours for the CO or SPID at an additional labor cost of $1,155,000 for the industry
(based on $50.00/hour). For each fumigation company, that represents an additional 246 hours for the
CO or SPID (based on 745 fumigations/year) at an additional labor cost of $12,300. There would be no
increase in cost to the Florida structural fumigation industry if EPA waives the FMP requirements for
Florida fumigators as requested by FPMA.
Fumigants used under these regulations are sulfuryl fluoride products registered for residential
fumigation (Vikane® gas fumigant [Douglas Products] and Zythor® [Ensystex]). Sites fumigated with
these sulfuryl fluoride products are listed above.
•

Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and labor costs associated
with the paperwork involved with this ICR (e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs
for conducting studies), are the estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate? If you provide burden
and labor cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA’s, please provide an explanation of how
you arrived at your estimates. Also, please specify the type and site(s) of fumigation.
Answer: Labor rates were not accurate. In Florida, the hourly cost for a Certified Operator or Special
Identification Cardholder (i.e. certified applicator)is about $50.00/hour and for a Fumigation Identification
Cardholder (i.e., pesticide handler) is about $40.00/hour. These estimates include wages, benefits,
workman’s compensation insurance, and costs to maintain employee certifications.
The ICR estimated burden costs did not include the EPA proposed in the interim mitigation procedures for
sulfuryl fluoride products registered for residential fumigation. The cost burden of the additional
information, currently not required by Florida regulations, that EPA is proposing for fumigators to record
on fumigation log forms is repeatedly discussed in this questionnaire.

•

Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?
Answer: Yes, with respect to the potential requirements to use the California Aeration Plan (CAP). In
addition to the increased equipment costs discussed above, the other significant burden cost for
fumigators to conduct CAP is additional cost in owner/manager time to change business operations,
forms, and platforms for CAP, as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Contracts with consumers and companies subcontracting fumigations.
Property owner preparation lists, such as adding removal of items potentially damaged by CAP
(e.g., external lights, globes, cameras, and other features that extend beyond the roof eaves).
Pricing.
Sales literature.
Web sites.
Advertising.
Company operating procedures.
Internal company training procedures on aeration.
Fumigation vehicle equipment inventory lists.
Scheduling for fumigations and employee deployment at fumigations.

The estimated cost equipment does not include the additional cost in owner/manager time to educate
and inform employees, customers, and others about CAP, as follows:

OMB Control No. 2070-0197
•
•

June 30, 2022

Educate fumigation company sales and office personnel, customers (realtors, property management
companies, school districts, etc.) and pest control companies (i.e., prime contractors) about the new
aeration procedures.
Inform insurance provider of the new aeration procedure, which requires more equipment and
longer time with tarps on the structure. (There possibly could more damage to structural elements
due to tarps constricting on the structure for at least 12 hours during CAP.)

The estimated time for the owner/manager to conduct all the above activities is 80 hours. At an
estimated wage $130.00/hour for an owner/manager, the cost per fumigation company is $10,400. These
costs do not include the cost to print new forms.
The above estimates do not include the additional classroom and field training and supervision required
for the Florida COs, SPIDs, and FIDs to learn how to conduct CAP. There will be a loss in efficiency of
fumigation crews, estimated at 5%, while this learning process occurs and for the extra time to install
aeration equipment (CAP ducted fans and vents) that are not used with the current label aeration
procedures. California regulators allowed fumigators six months to adopt CAP after written procedure for
CAP were finalized. Based on this, it is estimated that the cost per fumigation employee over six months
will be 50 hours for training and lost efficiency, at a cost of $2500 per CO and SPID, and $2,000 per FID.
Based on a survey conducted by Douglas Products in 2018, in Florida on average five certified operators
(e.g., COs and SPIDs) work at each fumigation company, including each branch location of a multi-branch
company. Assuming the same number, five, FIDs are employed per fumigation company, the total cost in
training and lost efficiency for fumigation employees to learn CAP is $22,5000.
In conclusion, the total estimated minimum cost per fumigation company (including branch locations) to
adopt CAP for one fumigation truck is about $77,900. The cost would be greater, about $157,900, if the
company had to purchase an additional truck to transport added CAP equipment. 2
Equipment costs:
Additional truck:
Owner/manager time:
CO/SPID/FID time:
Total

$ 45,000 (per truck)
$ 80,000 (if fumigation truck cannot carry CAP equipment)
$ 10,400
$ 22,500
$157,900

If EPA requires additional substantiation for any of the expenses (or wage rates) discussed, EPA should so advise FPMA.
Likewise, if EPA requires additional information concerning potential cost impacts to fumigation customers, or the ability of
the fumigation industry to bear certain of the costs mentioned herein, FPMA can attempt to collect such information.

Introduction

On May 23, 2021, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened a 60-day public comment,
which was later extended an additional 60 days, on its proposed risk mitigation procedures for described in the
document, Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0136-0105). The
proposed risk mitigation procedures would require significant and extensive labeling changes for sulfuryl fluoride
products registered for residential fumigation, specifically Vikane® gas fumigant (Douglas Products, Liberty, MO)
and Zythor® (Ensystex, Fayetteville, NC). These procedures are proposed in response to recommendations in the
Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) 2016 report, Additional Measures Can Be Taken to Prevent Deaths and Serious
Injuries from Residential Fumigations (No. 17-P-0053).
The Florida Pest Management Association (FPMA), as mentioned in the cover letter, is the largest pest control
association in Florida and is highly involved in the representation of fumigators. FPMA provides approved
Continuing Education Units (CEU) training courses for its members, participates in demonstrations of fumigation
operations, provides legal consultation to fumigators, offers fumigation resource persons to fumigators and also
has its own standing committee, the Fumigation Advisory Committee (FAC). FPMA leaders are deeply involved in
representing fumigation industry interests including FPMA members holding fumigation seats on the State of
Florida’s Pest Control Enforcement Advisory Council (PCEAC), the National Pest Management Association’s
(NPMA) Fumigation Committee, Douglas Product’s Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel (Panel) as well as our
involvement in state legislative affairs, training for state and federal agency personnel, co-authoring fumigation
training material for state certification examinations and as lead instructors at the University of Florida School of
Structural Fumigation. The FPMA understands the value of the fumigation industry in Florida and across the
nation from the fumigation professional to the consumer of those services.
The FPMA is strongly supporting the findings in the posted docket item Douglas Product’s Sulfuryl Fluoride
Advisory Panel Assessment of Proposed Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures. The FPMA
has participated and reviewed the document thoroughly and stands by the assessments declared in the Panel’s
report. This report provides the weight and argument for the EPA to consider the shortcomings of the rushed
Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures.
Furthermore, the FPMA has drafted the document posted to the docket, Florida Waiver Request. This document
has been posted separately from this wider response report to draw attention to the importance and the details
of a waiver for Florida fumigation operations from any Fumigation Management Plan (FMP) requirements. The
Florida Waiver Request stands on its own and must be considered in light of the unique regulatory environment
in Florida.
One of the fumigation incidents that prompted the EPA OIG investigation occurred in Florida. That incident
prompted the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(DACS) recommend changes in state rules and procedures to address the root causes of the incident. Those
recommendations resulted in subsequent changes to rules for fumigators and registrants of sulfuryl fluoride
products registered for residential fumigation (residential fumigants), as described in the Florida Waiver Request.
These current rules are listed in Appendices I, II, and III.

The FPMA finds that these 5 proposals should be moved to the regular EPA registration review of the sulfuryl
fluoride versus this interim label change. It makes more sense to have the proper feedback and completeness on
a final federal label rather than having an interim label and a final label overlapping in deployment. For regulating
compliance, a single new federal label is more logical. Any significant change in fumigant labeling requires a
fumigation company to review and revise as needed all facets of its operations, including its contracts, insurance
policies, procedures, literature, advertising, and training. It is less costly and disruptive to business operations to
do this once, rather than twice in succession for two labeling changes likely to occur within one year of each other.

Response to EPA Proposed

The EPA has proposed what is essentially 5 major items for the Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation
Measures:
•
•
•
•
•

Removal of the Spectros SF ExplorIR and Interscan GF1900 clearance devices based on the EPA Analytical
Chemistry Branch laboratory evaluation
Amending label requirements for warning sign features and placement
Requirement of Fumigation Management Plans (FMP)
Posting registrant Stewardship plans to EPA website, imposing requirements for training content,
attendees and hands on training
Replacing Aeration Procedures 1 and 2 with the California Aeration Plan (CAP)

These 5 items are proposed to be applied in full regulatory context in a very accelerated timeframe. The
timeframe that the EPA has promoted is impossible even if the items were agreeable and tenable. The EPA is
attempting to put answers to its own Office of Inspector General as an interim label change immediately ahead
of a “normal” Re-Registration Eligibility Determination (RED). These changes need to be put back into the RED
where they belong and all changes to federal labeling would occur at once as normal processes would have them
happen. This is a highly dysfunctional way to do label changes that would involve massive data collection,
regulator training, industry training and equipment procurement. These changes are also not consistent with
label development in that there is no support mechanism included for specific items other than recommendations
from OIG inspectors in their report posing questions to the EPA itself. This process as presented to industry is
600+ pages of technical information to wade through in a short period of time. It is clear through the EPA’s own
information posted to the docket that the EPA is unaware of many of the facts in the industry today as well as
having an apparent rush “to do something”.
The FPMA works with stakeholders directly and as a volunteer run organization, we have fumigators sharing their
expertise because they do this every day of every week of every year to some 70,000 fumigations per year using
these products. We are certain that our perspective presented is accurate and inclusive of safety, practicality and
is regulatable.

Removal of the Spectros SF ExplorIR and Interscan GF1900 clearance devices
based on the EPA Analytical Chemistry Branch laboratory evaluation
The OIG Report, Additional Measures Can Be Taken to Prevent Deaths and Serious Injuries from Residential
Fumigations, recommended that the EPA conduct an assessment of the 4 approved clearance devices to validate
their effectiveness in detecting required clearance levels as part of the EPA’s ongoing re-evaluation of fumigants.
The Spectros SF-ExplorIR is used by more than 80% of the sulfuryl fluoride fumigators in Florida. This is
documented in the sulfuryl fluoride clearance device registry maintained by the FDACS. Florida fumigators who
apply residential fumigants must register their sulfuryl fluoride clearance devices with FDACS. The date for the
last calibration verification must be entered for each device. Clearance device service providers have access to
the registry to update calibration verification dates for the devices they are servicing on behalf of their fumigation
customers. An authorized service provider for Spectros Instruments is conveniently located in Florida. Each year,
this service provider participates in numerous training programs, hosted by FPMA and University of Florida,
throughout the state to educate fumigators about maintenance and correct operation of the SF-ExplorIR and other
Spectros monitors. Florida fumigators should not be required to replace their SF-ExplorIRs if additional research
documents that this device has the required sensitivity to measure sulfuryl fluoride.
The FPMA is highly supportive of allowing the device manufacturer(s) the time they need to pursue third party lab
testing to present to the EPA.
The FPMA is supportive of the continued use of all demonstrably effective clearance devices.
The FPMA proposes that any action taken on clearance device(s) be moved to the RED phase until evaluation is
complete of third party laboratory testing.

Amending label requirements for warning sign features and placement
The FPMA clearly understands that each State Lead Agency (SLA) has regulated the use of fumigants specific to
the unique needs of their state. FPMA has reviewed the current Florida Rule and Law to argue what the needs
should be for warning signs while balancing what other State Lead Agencies (SLA) may be regulating. For instance,
California’s SLA has strong guidance on warning signs and while there is some overlap with Florida we clearly
understand that all SLAs with fumigation regulations have different ways of regulating. The FPMA is proud of the
Florida SLAs regulatory oversight of the industry and we are comfortable with the detailed wording in our Rule
and Law that regulates warning signs. The EPA has asked for a large label change to include sign formatting and
placement. FPMA does not agree that it is necessary in Florida and that the proposed language from the Panel is
more acceptable than the EPA proposed language.
The Florida SLA, DACS, has significant Laws and Rules to enforce regarding fumigation warning signs. Standards
for size, placement, and formatting are included in the litany of regulations. The comparison against the EPA
proposed language and the FPMA supported revised language with FPMA rationale is listed below in Table 1.

The FPMA specifically is opposed to warning sign placement language that is unenforceable such as the proposed
“on every seam where two tarps are joined together”.
FPMA also recommends the pursuit of these changes to made during the normal RED process and not during the
Interim Label proposal. These changes, along with the others, should be made in whole on the label so that training
regulators and fumigators alike can occur properly without having different labels in circulation.

Requirement of Fumigation Management Plans (FMP)
The FPMA has submitted a separate document outlining its position on the Fumigation Management Plan
requirements as well as asking for a waiver for Florida fumigators from FMP requirements. The document is
posted to the docket and is titled, Florida Waiver Request.
The Florida Waiver Request report places heavy emphasis on industry efforts surrounding recordkeeping and the
success resulting from those efforts. The industry in Florida is unique in how the fumigators document specific
items such as information posted to the state website including Notification of Fumigation, Clearance Device
Registry Database and CEU submittals for training (see Appendix I). Along with other required records including
required Fumigation Log Forms and DOT compliance records, the FMP would become a duplication of information
for Florida fumigators and provides no new useful information that serves the purposes of an FMP in conveying
risk.
The FPMA strongly supports the Panel’s assessment of the FMP requirements. The detailed arguments in the
Panel’s assessment along with the Florida Waiver Request are clear. In fact, recordkeeping in Florida is better than
a simple FMP template and the recordkeeping holds relevant information at relevant times unlike the FMP
templates for other fumigation service types.
The FPMA opposes the EPA’s FMP language proposals and is strongly supporting its waiver request should the FMP
language be pursued.
The FPMA strongly proposes that this be part of the RED and not an interim label change.
Posting registrant Stewardship plans to EPA website, imposing requirements for training
content, attendees and hands on training
Florida already has adopted Rules (see Appendix III) that require Stewardship training to specific individuals both
initially and annually. These Rules are significant and mandate the use of the Florida CEU program to track the
participants for compliance. The Stewardship policy is an agreement between the fumigator and the
manufacturer to ensure compliance with trained labelling requirements. FPMA is not certain what the “posting”
to the EPA website section means and finds that it would be unwarranted to seek approval from EPA for training
program changes due to the time factor involved with EPA approval mechanisms. In addition, the Stewardship
policy itself is designed for each state based on the individual state regulations. The Stewardship policy must be
provided to DACS as part of the registration process for residential fumigants. Revisions to the Stewardship
training program content occur annually to provide up to date mandates, recommendations, and guidance to
fumigators and are presented each year by registrants as a training mechanism for FDACS employees. As far as
the assertion that the registrant should provide field training for fumigators, FPMA cannot support this concept.

DACS already has specific requirements for on-the-job training and experience applicants must meet prior to
taking state examinations for Fumigation Category. The registrant should not be burdened with providing hands
on training for fumigation operations that include liability risks for non-employees working at heights, working
with ladders, working with equipment, fulfillment of obligations for fitment and fitness using SCBA, PPE and
general work hazards. The registrant’s job is to educate the fumigator on the elements of safe and practical use
of the product. The Stewardship training program should be limited to labelling and applicable use within Rules
and Law. The fumigation company is responsible for the logistics leading up to the use of the fumigant including
transportation, employee training beyond Stewardship training, equipment training and use, and other company
policies and standards for fumigating structures. Table 2 proposes changes to the EPA language with Rationale
from FPMA.
FPMA is urging the EPA to consider these changes as proposed. Additionally, this is another item that could be
placed into the RED process for the full label revisions instead of being an Interim Label change that would add
nothing substantive to regulatory efforts considering the Stewardship policy is already in place as a condition of
using SF fumigants in every case, in every state and every year.
The FPMA strongly supports the Panel’s assessment of the EPA’s proposals surrounding registrant Stewardship
changes.
The FPMA proposes that proposed changes should be during the RED and not during an interim label change.

Replacing Aeration Procedures 1 and 2 with the California Aeration Plan (CAP)
The EPA is trying to force an entirely different aeration procedure on 49 other states with the California Aeration
Plan (CAP). CAP was designed in California to meet California’s needs and took years to develop and implement
fully. The EPA is proposing an Interim Label change and date that this procedure would sweep across the nation
and be the only way to aerate structures that have been fumigated. This is short-sighted and entirely impossible.
The EPA needs to understand the other 49 states’ individual needs and operations before it can say that one size
CAP fits all (which it does not). The FPMA is heavily opposed to the CAP procedure as proposed for several reasons
discussed below. The FPMA strongly supports the Panel’s assessment of CAP.
CAP was designed to work in California’s regulatory environment, its building types, its fumigant dosage averages,
its climate and its fumigator operations. Florida has variables that California does not, including being a tropical
climate with massive rain and thunderstorms, heavy winds, building construction types and regulatory
differences. Florida has not had any reported incidences of exposures related to workers or bystanders during
aeration and does not understand the purpose of the EPA’s pursuit of such dramatic change during an Interim
Label change (especially considering the time factors to implement such change). CAP equipment as it is
presented to the industry now will not be tolerant to Florida weather conditions and will cause water damage in
the homes through the open inlets and exhaust ducts (depending upon placement) as well as presenting other
issues such as the duct being wind-blown and causing tarps to come apart. CAP’s existing protocol and use pattern
has not been tested in Florida and the equipment modifications have not been considered.
CAP is designed to be used on entirely tarpaulin covered structures. This is because of the negative pressure
required for the process to work appropriately. Structures that are not completely tarpaulin covered such as
structures that need combinations of other sealing techniques along with tarpaulin coverings, structures that are
sealed using tape and seal methods or structures that are in and of themselves adequate for confinement would
need substantial alteration physically to the structure to allow for the use of the exhaust ducts, fans and intake
systems. Doing these types of alterations physically to a structure would cause significant and prohibitive cost
measures and may also cause the structure to be more easily accessible by people or animals during the aeration
phase due to open windows, doors, etc. as required for the equipment to serve the purpose with air exchange
and venting. In Florida and unlike California, there are numerous fumigated structures where tarpaulins are not
used at all. Florida’s construction needs are different than California and often include concrete block or poured
concrete walls on concrete slabs (think hurricane resistance) versus wood framing (think earthquake resistance).
CAP has unique qualities designed to mitigate specific risks that arose from California regulations only. CAP at this
point is not on the EPA approved Vikane label and has been used now in California by state regulations for more
than a decade. CAP would need substantive review with substantive changes to the equipment and allowances
for structures where it does not readily apply. These reviews and alterations to the CAP would take time and
research to determine when and where CAP type aeration would apply.
CAP is not practical or possible to use on small structures such as detached garages, boats, automobiles, trailers
and delicate construction types (tiki huts, sheds, mobile homes, etc.). CAP is also not practical for use on stack
type or compartmentalized fumigations such as single rooms/units of a structure, pews in a church, bookcases in
libraries, collections in museums and other specialty fumigations where the structure itself is not the subject of
the fumigation.

The regulatory procedures in Florida are not conducive to the CAP procedure as it is written now. In Florida, 2
trained persons must be on site during the breaking of the seal and must remain on site throughout the active
aeration process. The CAP procedure has a single employee beginning aeration and the active phase of this CAP
aeration is anywhere from 12 to 22 hours in duration depending on the fumigation conditions. This would be
impossible to keep 2 trained persons on site during the entire active aeration phase. Florida’s regulatory
environment would take a few years to sort through the changes needed to accommodate the CAP process.
Training the fumigation companies and the regulators to the new standard would take time and money, which
the state is short on following the pandemic expenses.
The EPA proposal wants to remove Aeration Procedures 1 and 2. This cannot occur as a simple matter of fact.
Even in California, Aeration Procedures 1 and 2 are needed for situations where CAP cannot be completed or used,
such as when tarps blow open before the end of the job due to weather or other causes. Florida’s weather
environment is certainly different than California considering our tropical climate and daily thunderstorms,
influence from tropical weather systems, and daily coastal winds. Aeration Procedure 1 and 2 must be kept.
The FPMA would propose that the EPA keep Aeration Procedure 1 and 2 on the labeling. CAP cannot be the only
aeration method on the label and other methods must exist for situations where CAP cannot be conducted.
The FPMA strongly opposes the EPA proposal to eliminate current aeration procedures and replace them with a
singular option. Significant discussions and solutions must be identified for the various fumigation operations,
climates, and target pest treatment methods.
The FPMA proposes that any changes to current label aeration procedures be pulled from this interim label change
and placed in the RED where adequate time and consideration can be placed on solutions to problems that most
definitely would exist if CAP type aerations were the only options on the label.
The FPMA supports the SF Advisory Panel’s findings and strongly urges the EPA to consider its
recommendations. The FPMA requests that the EPA fold these 5 items into the regular re-registration
evaluation where they can be properly supported and have appropriate discussions about these items.

Appendix I. Florida Chapter 5e-14 fumigation related Rules

5E-14.102 Definitions.
(19) “Fumigation Employee” means any of the following persons who is an employee of a licensee or a
person conducting fumigation at the direction of or under the control of a licensee:
(a) Certified Operators in the fumigation category;
(b) Special Identification Cardholders;
(c) Employee Identification Cardholders with the Fumigation Identification Card endorsement.
(20) “Residential Fumigant” means a registered pesticide labeled for structural fumigation including or
encompassing a residential area in the state of Florida.
5E-14.104 Prohibited Acts.
(7) Licensees shall not purchase a residential fumigant or perform fumigation using a residential fumigant
unless the licensee and their fumigation employees have agreed to and are in compliance with the label
requirements and Stewardship Policy requirements for the residential fumigant as defined in rule 5E2.0312, F.A.C.
(8) A licensee’s fumigation employee shall not perform or assist in a fumigation unless the employee has
completed all training required by the Stewardship Policy for the residential fumigant to be used in the
fumigation, as set forth in rule chapters 5E-14 and 5E-2, F.A.C.
5E-14.108 Fumigation Requirements – General Fumigation.
(2) Whenever the presence of two (2) persons trained in the use of the fumigant is required by the
fumigant label, at least one of these persons must be either a certified operator of fumigation or a
designated special identification fumigation cardholder. The second person shall be a certified
fumigation operator, a special identification cardholder, or an identification cardholder with a
Fumigation Identification Card endorsement on the employee identification card, which may be
obtained as provided in subsection 5E-14.1421(5), F.A.C. Two (2) trained persons shall be present at each
fumigation site for the introduction of the fumigant, entry during fumigation, and from the start of
aeration (first opening of the seal) until the active aeration period with all operable doors and windows
open, if required by the fumigant label, is completed and the structure is secured for the remaining
aeration period. The certified operator in charge of fumigation or his designated special identification
cardholder shall be present at those times required by the fumigant label or by subsections 5E-14.108(1),
5E-14.111(4), 5E-14.112(1) and 5E-14.113(1), (2), F.A.C.
(3) It shall be the duty of the certified operator in charge of fumigation to carry out the following:
(a) Train and/or verify training to each special fumigation identification cardholder in proper
fumigation procedures as required by regulations and fumigant label directions, and to know the
location, purpose, use and maintenance of personal protective equipment and fumigant detection and
safety devices and when and how to use this equipment.
(b) Train each identification cardholder, assigned to fumigation work, in basic fumigation procedures,
SCBA (self contained breathing apparatus) use and the proper use of fumigant safety equipment and

to report immediately to the certified operator in charge or his special fumigation identification
cardholder any irregularities or emergencies.
(7) Each business licensee location performing fumigation must own at least two, label-approved,
clearance devices so that at all times, a licensee has access to a properly functioning clearance device
which must be calibrated in accordance with either the device manufacturer or the fumigant label
directions, whichever is more restrictive.
(8) Licensees performing fumigations using a residential fumigant must ensure that all functioning and
non-functioning fumigant clearance devices being used by the licensee are recorded within the
department’s electronic fumigation notification website at http://fumigation.freshfromflorida.com.
Information recorded must include the name of the manufacture, serial number, last known date of
calibration and operational status of each device. The department shall grant access to third parties for
the purpose of verifying that the records maintained on the fumigation notification website are accurate.
It is solely the licensee’s obligation to ensure that all data submited to the deparment is accurate.
(9) Licensees performing fumigations with a residential fumigant must agree to, in writing, and be in
compliance with the Stewardship Policy requirements for the residential fumigant used, including having
completed all training and quality assurance review(s) required under the relevant Stewardship Policy.
New fumigation employees must receive Initial Stewardship Training on the residential fumigant(s) used
by the licensee within 60 days of their first day of employment by the licensee, if the new fumigation
employee did not receive that stewardship training earlier in the calendar year. Current employees of
the licensee who transition to working as fumigation employees must receive Annual Stewardship
Training on residential fumigant(s) used by the licensee within 60 days of receiving their new
identification cards (e.g. as a certified operator for fumigation, a special identification cardholder, or an
ID cardholder with a fumigation endorsement) if they did not receive that stewardship training earlier in
the calendar year.
(10) A licensee subcontracting a residential fumigation job to another licensee shall inform the
subcontracted licensee of the residential fumigant to be used based on the residential fumigant fact
sheet provided to the customer. The subcontracted licensee shall use the residential fumigant as
designated by the contracting licensee and must provide proof of stewardship training for the residential
fumigant designated by the contracting licensee upon request.
5E-14.110 Fumigation Requirements – Notices.
(1) Each licensee, before performing general fumigation, shall notify the department at least twentyfour (24) hours in advance of the fumigation period. Notification shall be made utilizing the department’s
electronic fumigation notification website http://fumigation.freshfromflorida.com or by submitting by
facsimile, a completed Notification of Fumigation, (FDACS-13667, Rev. 03/17), which is hereby adopted
and
incorporated
by
reference
and
available
online
at
http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-08120, to the fascimile number located on the
form. The notice shall state the following:
(a) Company name and business location address.
(b) Accepted common or trade name and active ingredients of fumigant to be used.

(c) Name of certified operator in charge or the designated certified operator(s) or special fumigation
identification card holder(s) for the fumigation, together with her or his day and night telephone
numbers.
(d) Location (address), county, and type of structure (single family, multi-family, commercial, or
other) and number of structures to be fumigated.
(e) Date of fumigation.
(f) Target pest.
(g) Contractor’s name (if subcontracted).
(h) Approximate duration of fumigation.
(2) Any change(s) in information required in notices by this regulation shall be reported via the electronic
submission website or in writing via facsimile in advance of the fumigation period.
(3) Exceptions: Notification of less than 24 hours is allowed only for verifiable situations affecting the
health, safety, and welfare of the public and severe weather conditions. Notification shall be made
immediately before the fumigation period by advance electronic submission via
http://fumigation.freshfromflorida.com, or electronic mail to [email protected], or
facsimile to (850)617-7968.
(4) A licensee that performs chamber or vault fumigations on the premises of the licensee’s licensed
business location shall notify the department annually in writing. This notice may be submitted using the
electronic notification system at http://fumigation.freshfromflorida.com. Information required in the
written notification shall include the type (or description) of chamber being used on the property (such
as shipping containers, trucks, PODS, tarpaulin areas, etc.), and the days of the week and hours during
which these fumigations may be performed during the year of notification. The licensee shall provide
the department at least 24 hours notice of any changes in the days of the week and hours during which
fumigations may be performed.
5E-14.142 Responsibilities and Duties – Records, Reports, Advertising, Applications.
(3) Licensees performing fumigation with a residential fumigant, their employees, certified operators,
and special identification cardholders shall comply with the label requirements and Stewardship Policy
requirements of the residential fumigant being used.
(a) In addition, the following safety procedures shall be followed to enhance safety in the clearance
of structures fumigated with a residential fumigant. The certified operator for the contracted
licensee shall maintain records relating to the fumigation clearance of structures fumigated with a
residential fumigant. Such records shall consist of the following information for each application:
1. Name and license number of the licensee responsible for the fumigant application;
2. Name of the person who applied the fumigant;
3. Date and time of the following: fumigant introduction, start of aeration, completion of
aeration, and final testing for clearance;
4. Location of treatment site;
5. Detailed information relating to each label required clearance period including names of
employees and personnel involved and start and stop times;

6. Total volume (cubic feet or other appropriate units) of the fumigated space;
7. Brand name or EPA registration number of the pesticide product applied; and,
8. Total amount in pounds or ounces, of fumigant and warning agent applied.
(b) Licensees or applicators operating in the category of fumigation shall use the Fumigation Log,
(FDACS-13000, 01/17), which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference and available online
at http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-07904, while onsite. Licensees or
applicators operating in the category of fumigation pursuant to section 482.111(2)(a), F.S., may use
an alternative fumigation log form only if it incorporates all information required to be recorded in
the current Fumigation Log, (FDACS-13000, 01/17). All licensees performing fumigation shall retain
any records relating to the fumigation required by this rule for a period of two (2) years from the
date of the fumigation. Upon request by the department, the licensee or certified operator in charge
shall make available the records required to be maintained under this rule and shall permit the
authorized representative to copy or photograph any of the records. The original records shall be
maintained by the licensee.
(4) The required information shall be recorded no later than two (2) working days after the date of
application and may be incorporated into other business transaction records.

Appendix II. Cited Sections of Florida Chapter 482 in relation to
structural fumigation

482.091 Employee identification cards.
(1)(a) Each employee who performs pest control for a licensee must have an identification card (b) Either
the licensee or the licensee’s certified operator in charge must apply to the department for an
identification card for each employee who will perform pest control therefor within 30 days after
employment of that employee, on a form prescribed by the department. The licensee and the
licensee’s certified operator in charge are jointly responsible for obtaining such identification cards.
(2)(a) An identification cardholder must be an employee of the licensee and work under the direction
and supervision of the licensee’s certified operator in charge and shall not be an independent
contractor. An identification cardholder shall operate only out of, and for customers assigned from,
the licensee’s licensed business location. An identification cardholder shall not perform any pest
control independently of and without the knowledge of the licensee and the licensee’s certified
operator in charge and shall perform pest control only for the licensee’s customers.
(b) The identification card shall be carried on the employee’s person while performing or soliciting
pest control and shall be presented on demand to the person for whom pest control is being
performed or solicited, to any inspector of the department, or to any of such other persons as are
designated by the rules of the department.
(c) An employee may not perform pest control without carrying on her or his person a current
identification card affixed with the employee’s signature and current photograph.
(d) An identification cardholder may use only the licensee’s pesticides, equipment, and other
materials when performing pest control.
482.111 Pest control operator’s certificate.
(1) The department shall issue a pest control operator’s certificate to each individual who qualifies under
this chapter. Before issuance of an original certificate, an individual must complete an application for
examination, pay the examination fee required under s. 482.141, and pass the examination. Before
engaging in pest control work, each certified operator must be certified as provided in this section.
(10) Prior to the expiration date of a certificate, the certificate holder must complete 2 hours of approved
continuing education on legislation, safety, pesticide labeling, and integrated pest management and 2
hours of approved continuing education in each category of her or his certificate or must pass an
examination given by the department. The department may not renew a certificate if the continuing
education or examination requirement is not met.
(a) Courses or programs, to be considered for credit, must include one or more of the following
topics:
1. The law and rules of this state pertaining to pest control.
2. Precautions necessary to safeguard life, health, and property in the conducting of pest control
and the application of pesticides.

3. Pests, their habits, recognition of the damage they cause, and identification of them by
accepted common name.
4. Current accepted industry practices in the conducting of fumigation, termites and other wooddestroying organisms pest control, lawn and ornamental pest control, and household pest
control.
5. How to read labels, a review of current state and federal laws on labeling, and a review of
changes in or additions to labels used in pest control.
6. Integrated pest management.
(b) The certificate holder must submit with her or his application for renewal a statement certifying
that she or he has completed the required number of hours of continuing education. The statement
must be on a form prescribed by the department and must identify at least the date, location,
provider, and subject of the training and must provide such other information as required by the
department.
482.132 Qualifications for examination and certification.
(2) Each applicant for examination for a pest control operator’s certificate must possess the minimum
qualifications specified in one of the following paragraphs:
(a) Three years’ employment as a service employee of a licensee that performs pest control in the
category or categories in which the applicant seeks certification, 1 year of which employment must
have been completed in this state during the year immediately preceding application for
examination.
(b, c)[Does not apply to fumigation]
(d) A 2-year degree in general pest control technology or the equivalent from a college or university,
with advanced training of 20 or more semester hours or 30 or more quarter hours of credit in
entomology, plus 1 year of employment as a service employee of a licensee that performs pest
control in any category or categories. Such an applicant is qualified for all examinations.
(e) Twenty-four semester hours or 36 quarter hours of courses in entomology, pest control
technology, and related subjects, plus 1 year of employment as a service employee of a licensee that
performs pest control in the category of general household pest, termite, and fumigation. Such an
applicant is qualified only for examination in the categories of general household pest control,
termite and other wood-destroying organisms pest control, and fumigation.
482.141 Examinations.
(1) Each individual seeking certification must satisfactorily pass an examination which must be written
but which may include practical demonstration. The department shall hold at least two examinations
each year. An applicant may seek certification in one or more categories.
482.151 Special identification card for performance of fumigation.
(1) Any individual who performs fumigation must be a special identification cardholder, unless such
individual is a certified operator who is certified in the category of fumigation. When performing

fumigation, a special identification cardholder or certified operator may act only under the direction and
supervision of the certified operator in charge.
(2) The department shall prescribe by rule the qualifications, privileges, duties, and limitations of holders
of special identification cards.
(3) The department may issue special identification cards to qualified individuals who pass written
examinations that may include practical demonstration. The application forms shall be prescribed by the
department.
(4) The department, in its rules, shall provide for such matters as required qualifications for applicants
for examination, written or practical phases or categories of examinations, and time of examinations.
(8) Prior to the expiration date of a special identification card, the cardholder must:
(a) Complete 2 hours of approved continuing education on legislation, safety, and pesticide labeling
and 2 hours of approved continuing education in the fumigation category; or
(b) Pass an examination in fumigation given by the department.

Appendix III. Florida Chapter 5E-2.0312 Additional Registration
Requirements For Registrants of Structural Fumigants Labeled For
Application to Residential Structures.

(1) Stewardship Policy. Each registrant of a residential fumigant shall adopt and maintain a written
Stewardship Policy applicable to each residential fumigant registered with the department. Registrants
must submit a copy of each Stewardship Policy to the department prior to selling or distributing a
residential fumigant in the state of Florida and within 30 days of making any changes to the policy. A
registrant shall not sell or distribute a residential fumigant to any licensee who has not agreed, in writing,
to the Stewardship Policy for the residential fumigant sold or distributed.
(2) The Stewardship Policy shall include the following:
(a) Training requirements. All stewardship training shall be conducted by the registrant or their
designated representative including distributors and contractors, for all fumigation employees that
perform fumigation using the registrant’s residential fumigant.
1. There shall be an Initial Stewardship Training and an Annual Stewardship Training. All related
courses, sessions, and instruction must be identified accordingly.
2. The Initial Stewardship Training shall include:
a. Proper use, handling, and storage of the registrant’s residential fumigant;
b. The proper use and calibration requirements for label-approved clearance detection
devices;
c. The proper use of label-required safety equipment including the self contained breathing
apparatus;
d. Review of the label, manual, Safety Data Sheets, safety procedures, and Stewardship Policy
for the registrant’s residential fumigant; and,
e. Dosage calculation for the registrant’s residential fumigant.
3. The Annual Stewardship Training shall include:
a. Review of the proper use, handling, and care of safety equipment and clearance detection
devices;
b. Review of labeling and registrant stewardship requirements for worker protection and
public safety;
c. Review of any updates to registrant’s residential fumigant labeling; and,
d. Review of any updates to registrant’s residential fumigant Stewardship Policy.
(b) Quality assurance reviews (QAR): QARs must be conducted by the registrant or their designated
representative at least once per calendar year for each licensee using the registrant’s residential
fumigant. The QAR shall include an on-site observation of the licensee’s fumigation employees
conducting a structural fumigation using the registrant’s residential fumigant. The QAR may be
conducted at different sites and on different fumigation employees of the licensee in order for the
registrant to complete subparagraphs 1. and 2.
1. The QAR shall include observations of:
a. Preparation of structure for fumigation;

b. Introduction of chloropicrin and registrant’s residential fumigant;
c. Initiation of aeration and active aeration; and,
d. Final clearance testing.
2. The QAR shall include verification that the following items are at the fumigation site:
a. Two (2) self-contained breathing apparati according to the product label;
b. Secondary locks;
c. Proper signage in accordance with Rule 5E-14.112, F.A.C.;
d. Registrant’s residential fumigant label-approved clearance devices;
e. Registrant’s residential fumigant label-required personal protective equipment.
3. The registrant or designated representative must document the date, licensee’s name,
fumigation employee(s) observed, phase of fumigation process observed, and registrant
representative conducting the QAR. These records shall be maintained for a two-year period from
the date of the fumigation and are subject to department inspection.
(c) Probation and Stop Sale. The Stewardship Policy shall include procedures for the issuance of
probation or stop sale notices to licensees who use the registrant’s residential fumigant. The
Stewardship Policy shall also describe options for corrective actions to be completed by a licensee in
the event the registrant places a licensee on probation or issues a stop-sale notice and shall describe
how corrective actions shall be determined.
1. The registrant shall place a licensee on probation or issue a stop-sale notice to a licensee if the
registrant receives verifiable documentation of an observation by the registrant’s employee or
designated representative or a report of an inspection conducted by the department that the
licensee has failed to follow critical safety procedures including the proper use of the following
as determined by the registrant’s residential fumigant label and Rule Chapters 5E-2 and 5E-14,
F.A.C.:
a. Chloropicrin;
b. Self-contained breathing apparatus;
c. Approved clearance devices;
d. Secondary locks and barricades, or
e. Any other safety procedure critical to the protection of workers, bystanders, homeowners,
or the public as prescribed by the residential fumigant’s label and Rule Chapters 5E-2 and 5E14, F.A.C.
2. The registrant shall notify in writing, the licensee, all Florida distributors of the registrant’s
residential fumigant, and the department of a decision to place a licensee on probation or stop
the sale and distribution of a residential fumigant to the licensee, within 15 business days of the
registrant receiving confirmation that the licensee has failed to follow a critical safety procedure
as outlined in subparagraph (2)(c)1., of this rule.
3. Notification to the department shall be made by utilizing the department’s electronic
fumigation notification website, http://fumigation.freshfromflorida.com, or by submitting a
completed Registrant Notification of Stewardship Compliance Action (FDACS-13001, 01/17),

which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference and available online at
https://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-07899,
by
email
to
[email protected] or by facsimile to (850)617-7968.
4. The registrant shall place a licensee on probation for no less than six months if the licensee
fails to follow one or more critical safety procedures as outlined in subparagraph (2)(c)1., of this
rule while using the registrant’s residential fumigant. Probation may be terminated at any time
during the probationary period if the licensee completes all corrective actions recommended by
the registrant and submits to a QAR in compliance with paragraph (1)(b).
5. The registrant shall issue an extended stop sale and stop the distribution of its residential
fumigant to a licensee if within a six-month period, the licensee fails to follow two or more critical
safety procedures as outlined in subparagraph (2)(c)1., while using a residential fumigant, or if
the licensee fails to follow one or more critical safety procedures while on probation. The
registrant shall lift the extended stop-sale only if the licensee completes all corrective actions
recommended by the registrant.
Once the extended stop-sale is lifted, the registrant can resume the sale and distribution of the
registrant’s residential fumigant to the licensee. Upon resuming the sale and distribution of the
residential fumigant to the licensee, the registrant shall place the licensee on probation for no
less than six months. If the licensee fails to follow at least one critical safety procedure while on
probation after the extended stop-sale, the registrant shall notify the department and
recommend suspension or revocation of the licensee’s license to perform residential
fumigations. The registrant shall re-issue the extended stop-sale notice to the licensee if the
department suspends the licensee’s license to perform residential fumigations. The extended
stop-sale shall remain in place until the department lifts the suspension.
6. The registrant shall issue a permanent stop-sale notice when the department revokes a
licensee’s license to perform residential fumigations.
7. The registrant shall notify all Florida distributors of the registrant’s residential fumigant in
writing when probation or a stop-sale is lifted.
(d) The Stewardship Policy shall require licensees to return any unused residential fumigant and all
residential fumigant containers to the registrant upon notification of a permanent or extended stopsale and shall require all Florida distributors of the registrant’s residential fumigant who are no longer
contracted by the registrant for distribution of the registrant’s residential fumigant to return any
unused residential fumigant and any and all residential fumigant containers to the registrant. At the
request of the registrant, a department representative shall be present at the site of the licensee
during the removal of the registrant’s residential fumigant containers.
(3) Continuing Educational Approval. Registrants or their designated representatives must apply to the
department for Continuing Educational Units (CEU) for all Stewardship Training programs. Registrants
are required to use the department’s designated CEU registration program website at
https://ceu.freshfromflorida.com/ or submit as instructed on the Request for Granting Continuing
Education Units (CEUs) For Renewal of Pesticide Applicator Licenses and Certificates, (FDACS- 13326,
Rev. 10/13) form which is incorporated by reference in Rule 5E-9.029, F.A.C.

(a) The department shall approve Annual and Initial Stewardship Training programs for the granting
of CEUs in fumigation when the Stewardship Training programs meet the criteria set forth in Rule 5E9.029, F.A.C. Annual Stewardship Training will be allocated one (1) fumigation CEU. Initial
Stewardship Training will be allocated two (2) fumigation CEUs. All Stewardship Training programs
shall be conducted in-person and must comply with paragraph (2)(a), of this rule.
b) The department shall be allowed to attend and monitor Stewardship Training courses conducted
by the registrant to evaluate whether the training requirements set forth in paragraph (2)(a), of this
rule, have been met. Department inspectors shall document their observations using the
Stewardship Monitoring Report, (FDACS-13003, 01/17) which is hereby adopted and incorporated
by reference and available online at https://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref07900. Department inspectors will also provide a copy of the report to the course provider.
(c) The registrant or designated representative must conduct the Annual Stewardship Training for all
licensees who use the registrant’s residential fumigant. Licensees must complete the Annual
Stewardship Training by June 1 of each calendar year. Additional Annual Stewardship Training
sessions must be conducted for new fumigation employees hired or first assigned to fumigation
activities after June 1 of a calendar year. Registrants, or their designated representatives, shall inform
licensees who purchase the registrant’s residential fumigant of Annual Stewardship Training in
writing by mail or electronic delivery prior to training at a time interval specified by the department’s
CEU requirements set forth in Rule 5E-9.029, F.A.C.
(d) The registrant or designated representative must offer initial stewardship training to licensees
without previous initial stewardship training for the registrant’s residential fumigant unless the
licensee has purchased the registrant’s residential fumigant within the past three years and
completed annual training during that three year period. A licensee or any of its fumigation
employees required to complete the Initial Stewardship Training will not be eligible to purchase the
registrant’s residential fumigant until completion of the Initial Stewardship Training.
(e) A registrant shall maintain for a period of two years a record of attendance using the “Stewardship
Program Attendee Form,” (FDACS-13004 01/17) which is hereby adopted and incorporated by
reference and available online at https://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-07901.
The registrant shall make information recorded on this form available for inspection by the
department or its authorized representative upon request. The registrant may substitute their own
form as long as all of the information required by the Stewardship Program Attendee Form, (FDACS
13004 01/17) is incorporated.
(4) Registrants or their designated representatives shall assist the department, at the department’s
request, with removing the registrant’s residential fumigant containers from the possession of licensees
who are subject to a stop-use or stop-work order issued by the department pursuant to Rule 5E-14.108,
F.A.C.

Introduction
On May 23, 2021, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened a 60-day
public comment, which was later extended an additional 60 days, on its proposed risk mitigation
procedures for described in the document, Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation
Measures (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0136-0105). The proposed risk mitigation procedures would
require significant and extensive labeling changes for sulfuryl fluoride products registered for
residential fumigation, specifically Vikane® gas fumigant (Douglas Products, Liberty, MO) and
Zythor® (Ensystex, Fayetteville, NC). These procedures are proposed in response to
recommendations in the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) 2016 report, Additional Measures
Can Be Taken to Prevent Deaths and Serious Injuries from Residential Fumigations (No. 17-P0053).
The 2016 OIG report was prompted by two high profile incidents that occurred in 2015, resulting
in serious injury to members of two families in the United States due to improper residential
fumigation practices. One of these incidents occurred in Palm City, Florida in August, 2015. A
10-year old boy was hospitalized shortly after his family returned to their home following its
fumigation with Zythor. Immediately after this incident, the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services (FDACS), which regulates pest control businesses performing structural
fumigations in Florida, launched an investigation of this incident in collaboration with EPA and
the Florida Department of Health. As a result of this investigation, the responsible fumigator was
charged with multiple counts of using Zythor, a restricted use pesticide, in a manner inconsistent
with its labeling as described in Appendix I. These violations included not conducting the labelrequired aeration procedures and final clearance testing to confirm the concentration of Zythor
was 1 ppm or less before permitting the family to reoccupy their home.
Concurrent with this investigation, Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam requested the
FDACS Office of Inspector General (FDACS OIG) thoroughly evaluate the state’s structural
fumigation regulations and FDACS’s processes to enforce these regulations. The goal was to
determine if there were any practical modifications in these regulations or processes that would
improve fumigator compliance and regulatory oversight of sulfuryl fluoride products registered
for residential fumigation (i.e., residential fumigants). As a result of this evaluation, the FDACS
OIG made 11 recommendations, some of which required legislative changes. These
recommendations included the following:
•
•

Establish greater accountability of pest control businesses for violations of structural
fumigation law/rules.
Require sulfuryl fluoride registrants (of residential fumigants) to strengthen stewardship
requirements.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Require enhanced reporting for providers of continuing education courses and revise
monitoring procedures for courses.
Increase consumer awareness regarding structural fumigations and potential exposures.
Eliminate or clarify emergency structural fumigation notification.
Enhance FDACS methodology for selecting inspections.
Provide all inspectors with necessary equipment.
Enhance clearance device regulations.
Increase the frequency of structural fumigation business inspections.
Modify or upgrade FDACS systems to enhance recordkeeping.

All of the above listed recommendations in the FDACS OIG report were implemented by FDACS,
adding to the state’s already extensive regulatory requirements for fumigators who use
residential fumigants.
The purpose of this report is to review these current regulations, many unique to Florida, that
ensure fumigators who use these fumigants already meet the requirements of a Fumigation
Management Plan (FMP) and to provide justification that Florida fumigators be waived from the
FMP requirements EPA has proposed for sulfuryl fluoride residential fumigants.
The report first provides a summary of Florida-specific regulations for fumigators who apply
residential fumigants, which include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Fumigation Employees and their required experience and training (page 4).
Mandated Registrant Stewardship Programs for Residential Fumigants (page 6).
Sulfuryl flouride Clearance Device Registry (page 8).
Notice of Fumigation (page 9).
Fumigation Log (page 10).
Unique Attributes of Florida Fumigation Regulations That Fulfill Requirements of a
Fumigation Management Plan (page 12).

The report also describes the abundant and comprehensive required and optional educational
opportunities in Florida who apply residential fumigants, as described in:
1. Fumigation Training Opportunities in Florida (page 7).
2. University of Florida School of Structural Fumigation (page 7).
The report next provides a history of Florida’s implementation of the FDACS OIG report, which
took nearly two years to complete and involved, among other things, revisions to two statutes.
If the currently proposed FMP requirements were mandated in Florida, a completely unnecessary
process (for reasons described in the first section) of implementation would be required. This
process would likely cause confusion for Florida fumigators and regulators as to which FMP
regulations have precedence if there is any conflict between state rules and labeling
requirements. The unintended consequences of any conflicts between Florida’s now wellestablished and well-functioning regulatory scheme and EPA’s proposals could be a reduction in
3

the safety of fumigations in Florida during, or even after, the implementation process. This
outcome and the associated burdens on Florida fumigators and their customers can be avoided
by waiving the proposed FMP requirements for Florida fumigators, and potentially for fumigators
in other states that can demonstrate to EPA that they have similarly comprehensive and effective
safety requirements.

Regulations in Florida for Fumigators Who Apply Residential Fumigants
Fumigation Employees and their required experience and training. In Florida, a “fumigation
employee” is any of the following persons who is an employee of a licensed pest control company
that conducts fumigation: (a) Certified Operators (CO) in the fumigation category; (b) Special
Identification Cardholders (SPID); (c) Employee Identification Cardholders with the Fumigation
Identification Card endorsement (FID) (5E-14.102 (19), Appendix II). In Florida, these three types
of fumigation employees must have an identification card in order to perform or assist at
fumigations (Chapter 482.091(1)(a), Appendix III). The training and testing requirements for each
of these three types of fumigation employees to initially obtain and annually renew their
identification cards differ and are described in Table 1. All fumigation employees require on the
job fumigation experience and training by their employer to obtain their initial fumigation
identification cards. The CO and SPID must also pass a state certification exam before they obtain
their initial fumigation identification cards. All fumigation employees who perform fumigations
using residential fumigants must provide FDACS with verification that they have completed the
registrant-provided stewardship training to renew (and initially obtain for the FID) their
fumigation identification cards.

In Florida, whenever the presence of two (2) persons trained in the use of the fumigant is
required by the fumigant label, at least one of these persons must be either a certified operator
(CO) of fumigation or a designated special identification fumigation cardholder (SPID). The
second person must be be a CO, SPID, or an identification cardholder with a Fumigation
Identification Card endorsement on the employee identification card (FID) (5E-14.108(2),
Appendix II). Therefore, Florida is the only state that requires specific fumigation employee
identification, employer-provided training, and registrant-provided stewardship training for the
“second trained person” assisting with application and aeration of residential fumigants.
Mandated Registrant Stewardship Programs for Residential Fumigants. Florida is the only state
that requires each registrant of a residential fumigant maintain a written stewardship policy for
its residential fumigant (5E-2.0312(2), Appendix IV) that includes the following:
• Initial and annual stewardship training, and
• Procedures for the issuance and corrective actions for removal of probation or stop sale
notices for fumigators who fail to conduct critical safety procedres.
The registrant cannot sell a residential fumigant to a fumigator who has not agreed, in writing,
to the stewardship policy for the residential fumigant. Concurently, Florida requires fumigators
performing fumigations with a residential fumigant to agree in writing and be in compliance with
the stewardship policy requirements for the residential fumigant used, including having
completed all required training (5E-14.108(9), Appendix II).
Florida is the only state which requires the registrant of residential fumigants to apply to FDACS
for Continuing Education Unit (CEUs) for its initial and annual stewardship training (5E-2.0312(3),
Appendix IV). As part of Florida regulations for providers of CEU programs for the pest control
indsutry, registrants must notify FDACS of the date, time, location, and trainer for each
stewardship training program. This enables FDACS inspectors to attend these programs to verify,
using the stewardship monitoring report form (FDACS-13003 01/17, Appendix VIII), registrant
compliance with all CEU and stewardship training requirements. The number of stewardship
training sessions formally monitored by FDACS inspectors were seventeen in 2018-19, eleven in
2019-2020, and eight in 2020-2021. (Reduced numbers of stewardship training sessions were
monitored by FDACS in 2020-2021 due to COVID19 work restrictions for state employees on
attending in-person training programs).As part of the CEU stewardship training program, the
trainer has each attendee sign a stewardship program attendee form (FDACS-13004 01/17,
Appendix IX) , which serves the following purposes:
• By signing the form, the attendee agrees to comply with the registrant's stewardship
policy, as required by 5E-14.108(9) (Appendix II).
• The fumigation company can use this form to verify to FDACS that its fumigation
employees, who perform fumigations using the specified residential fumigant, can renew
(and initially obtain for the FID) their fumigation identification cards.
6

Florida is the only state that requires a registrant of residential fumigants to put a fumigation
company on probation or stop-sale if the registrant receives verifiable documentation that any
of its fumigation employees failed to critical safety procedures in use of its residential fumigant
(5E-2.0312(2)(c), Appendix IV). The registrant must notify in writing the fumigation company, all
Florida distributors of the registrant’s residential fumigant, and FDACS of the probation or stop
sale.
FDACS has established an electronic fumigation notification website
http://fumigation.freshfromflorida.com, which registrants can use to notify FDACS of initiation
and termination of probations and stop sales. The advantage of using this website is that all
registrants and distributors of residential fumigants in Florida automatically receive notification
by email of probation and stop actions entered in the website. This notification system is
beneficial because it notifies all sulfuryl fluoride registrants and distributors of a fumigation
company on probation that could have have possible operational problems in using a residential
fumigant, and of a fumigation company on stop sale that should not be sold a residential fumigant
until the stop sale is terminated. The registrant can also submit the notification to FDACS by
email, email, or fax using the Registrant Notification of Stewardship Compliance Action (FDACS13001, 01/17, Appendix X). When a fumigation company is placed on stop sale by the registrant
or by FDACS, it can no longer submit a Notification of Fumigation to the FDACS website as
required by state law (see Notice of Fumigation).
Fumigation Training Opportunities in Florida. The state of Florida’s requirements for registrants
of residential fumigants result in many CEU-approved initial and annual stewardship training
sessions conducted each year for fumigation employees. On average each year, over 120 CEU
hours of stewardship training is offered by Douglas Products and over 50 CEU hours of
stewardship training is offered by Ensystex.
In addition, the Florida Pest Management Association (FPMA) and the Certified Pest Control
Operators (CPCO) of Florida offer over 50 CEU hours of fumigation-specific training opportunities
per year on a variety of topics, such as DOT requirements for transporting fumigants, fumigation
equipment updates, OSHA requirements for SCBA and ladder safety, and techniques for
conducting speciality fumigations. In Florida, COs and SPIDs in Fumigation must obtain each year
2 CEU hours of fumigation training and 2 CEU hours of CORE training (Table 1). CORE training
includes general topics such as pesticide mode of action, safe use of pesticides, Florida pesticide
rules and regulations, and label comprehension. Typically registrant-provided annual
stewardship training is approved for 2 CEU hours and fulfills the fumigation training requirement.
The 2 CEU hours for CORE training is offered by a variety of providers, including the Univeristy of
Florida, FPMA and CPCO, and pesticide registrants and distributors. CORE training programs are
available in-person and online.
University of Florida 2021 Fumigation Manual. The second edition of the Univeristy of Florida
Fumigation Manual (T. Chouvenc, E. Thoms, S. Brantley, and W. H. Kern, Jr.; Executive editor
and contributor R. H. Scheffrahn, University of Florida IFAS Extension publication no. SP340,
7

Version 2.01, last modified 09-10-2021, 234 pp) was just released this month ( September
2021). The manual is available for downloading using the following link:
https://flrec.ifas.ufl.edu/florida-fumigation-manual/. This manual is the culmination of more
than two years of collaboration between University of Florida faculty , FDACS, and professionals
from the fumigation industry to revise the first edition 2005 University of Florida Fumigation
Manual. The second edition is free of charge and provides the most up-to-date fumigation
training resource in any U.S. state. The Fumigation Manual is the primary source reference for
fumigators studying to take the FDACS fumigation certification exam and for FDACS to prepare
questions for this exam. No hard copy of the 2021 Fumigation Manual has been produced.
This manual is downloaded as a PDF file to a computer, phone, or tablet and is formatted to be
printer-friendly. The purpose for the digital format of the Fumigation Manual is to allow
flexibility for updating when label changes occur, such as those resulting from the current EPA
OIG recommendations and registration review of sulfuryl fluoride and other fumigants.
University of Florida School of Structural Fumigation. The School of Structural Fumigation is the
only course of it kind in the US. During the five-day program, instruction in classroom, hands-on
workshops, and field demonstrations is provided by more than 15 fumigators, manufacturer
representatives, regulators, and University of Florida faculty with structural fumigation expertise
(see https://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/fumigation/ for a complete description). The School of
Structural Fumigation has been conducted since 1989, and has been hosted on the University of
Florida Davie campus since 2003. Class size is limited to 60 students to ensure individual
attention for participants, who are work in small groups for hands-on training. The day after the
Fumigation School ends, FDACS offers exams for CO and SPID fumigation certification, which
participants register for directly with FDACS prior to the School. More than half the students take
these state certification exams. The majority of these students, often 95% and above, pass these
difficult state fumigation certification exams.
Sulfuryl flouride Clearance Device Registry. Florida is the only state that requires fumigation
companies that apply residential fumigants to register their sulfuryl fluoride clearance devices
using the FDACS electronic notification website at http://fumigation.freshfromflorida.com (5E14.108(8), Appendix II). Information about the each clearance device recorded in this registry
must include the name of the manufacturer, serial number, proof of purchase or how the device
was acquired, last known date of calibration and operational status (Figure 1). Florida requires
each fumigation company location performing fumigation must own at least two, labelapproved, properly functioning sulfuryl fluoride clearance devices which must be calibrated in
accordance with either the device manufacturer or the fumigant label directions, whichever is
more restrictive (5E-14.108(7), Appendix II). The registry will send email alerts to a fumigation
company beginning 14 days before the expiration of calibration of a clearence device registered
by the company. For efficiency, authorized service providers for the clearance device
manufacturers have permission to access this registry to update calibration verification of
8

clearance devices for fumigation companies. The clearance device registry is linked to the Notice
of Fumigation website. When a fumigation company does not have at least two operational,
calibrated sulfuryl fluoride clearance devices, FDACS issues an electronic stop sale and the
fumigation company can no longer submit a Notice of Fumigation to the FDACS website as
required by state law (see “Notice of Fumigation” discussed below).
Figure 1. Screenshot of FDACS Sulfuryl Fluoirde Clearance Device Registry for Fumigators
Applying Residential Fumigants.

Notice of Fumigation. A fumigation company must notify FDACS at least 24 hours before
performing a fumigation (5E-14.110(1)-(4), Appendix II). Notification is made using the FDACS
electronic fumigation notification website http://fumigation.freshfromflorida.com.
The
notification must include the following information (Figure 2):
(a) Company name and business location address.
(b) Accepted common or trade name and active ingredients of fumigant to be used.
(c) Name of certified operator in charge or the designated certified operator(s) or special
fumigation identification card holder(s) for the fumigation, together with her or his day and
night telephone numbers.
(d) Location (address), county, and type of structure (single family, multi-family, commercial,
or other) and number of structures to be fumigated.
(e) Date of fumigation.
(f) Target pest.
(g) Contractor’s name (if subcontracted).
(h) Approximate duration of fumigation.

The fumigation company must update the Notice of Fumigation (NOF) using the website if there
are any changes in the reported information, such as rescheduling the date of the fumigation.
Notification of less than 24 hours is allowed only for verifiable situations affecting the public
health, safety, and welfare and for severe weather conditions.
FDACS uses the NOF information for numerous purpose for regulatory compliance by fumigators,
including:
• Scheduling field inspections of fumigations.
• Tracking fumigations conducted by county, fumigation company, and month to ensure
proper deployment of deparment resources for compliance inspections, conducted in the
field and in the office, of fumigation companies.
Figure 2. Screenshot of Notification of Fumigation Website.

Fumigation Log. The CO or SPID are required to use a Fumigation Log (FDACS-13000, 01/17,
Appendix XI) when onsite at a fumigation using a residential fumigant (5E-14.142(3)-(4),
10

Appendix II). An alternative fumigation log may be used only if it incorporates all information
required to be recorded in the FDACS Fumigation Log. The required information must be
recorded in the fumigation log form by two working days after the date of fumigant application.
Fumigation companies must retain log forms for two years from the date of the fumigation.
Information required to be recorded in this log form for use of a residential fumigant is the most
complete of any state and includes the following:
1. Name and license number of the fumigation employee responsible for the fumigant
application;
2. Name of the fumigation employee(s) who applied the fumigant;
3. Date and time of the following: fumigant introduction, start of aeration, completion of
aeration, and final testing for clearance;
4. Location of treatment site;
5. Detailed information relating to each label required clearance period including names of
employees and personnel involved and start and stop times;
6. Total volume (cubic feet or other appropriate units) of the fumigated space;
7. Brand name or EPA registration number of the pesticide product applied; and,
8. Total amount in pounds or ounces, of fumigant and warning agent applied.
Hazardous Material Employee Training: The Department of Transportation (DOT) requires
employees complete the Hazardous Material Employee Training (49 CFR § 172.700 HM-232,
Appendix XII). The CO, SPID and FID are considered a Hazardous Material Employee and must
receive this training. Part of this training on hazards associated with sulfuryl fluoride, personal
protective equipment to prevent overexposure, and first aid are in the annual registrantprovided stewardship training. Additional company-specific procedures including cylinder
security during transport and emergency response are provided to fumigation employees by the
fumigation company.
As part of the compliance for US DOT Hazardous Materials Drivers, fumigation companies are
required to have specific safety items in place which provide additional layers of safety when
storing, transporting, and handling fumigants. Some of the specific requirements for fumigators
transporting residential fumigants include:
• Written Emergency Response Plan
• Shipping papers and emergency response contact information
• Written safety plans for in-transit, facility, and personnel
• DOT Hazmat drivers must be drug tested prior to employment and enrolled in random
drug testing programs
• Vehicles must be inspected and meet requirements
• Hazmat training for employees, managers, drivers
o Emergency Response information
11

•
•

o Employee protection measure
o Procedures for incident avoidance
o Reporting procedures
In addition, drivers must qualify through stringent background checks, physical fitness
testing, state certification and traffic compliance history
Management must have specific training to identify impaired drivers/employees

Fumigation companies transport the residential fumigant to the fumigation site and therefore
must meet all of the above mentioned DOT requirements as part of their overall compliance
scheme. This is unlike soil or non-soil commodity fumigations, where the fumigant is typically
delivered by common carrier directly to the fumigation site. For these fumigators who are not
transporting the fumigant, they do not need to comply with the additional training, written plans,
and testing required by DOT. As a result of transporting residential fumigants, Florida fumigators
using these fumigants have significant documentation, training, and testing as part of the overall
plan to prevent accidents, identify appropriate emergency procedures and demonstrate
compliance with safety requirements.
Unique Attributes of Florida Fumigation Regulations That Fulfill Requirements of a Fumigation
Management Plan. Florida is the only state that mandates the following in its regulations for
registrants of and fumigators applying residential fumigants:
•

•

•
•

All fumigation employees (CO, SPID, and FID as defined by state regulations) must provide
FDACS with verification that they have completed the registrant-provided stewardship
training to initially obtain or renew their fumigation identification cards.
Fumigation employee identification, employer-provided training, and registrant-provided
stewardship training is required for the “second trained person” assisting with application
and aeration of residential fumigants.
The registrant must maintain a written stewardship policy for its residential fumigant that
includes initial and annual stewardship training, and procedures for the issuance and
corrective actions for removal of probation or stop sale notices for fumigators who fail to
conduct critical safety procedures.
Fumigators must agree in writing to be in compliance with the stewardship policy
requirements for the residential fumigant used, including having completed all required
training.
The registrant must apply to FDACS for Continuing Education Unit (CEUs) for its initial and
annual stewardship training.
The registrant must put a fumigation company on probation or stop-sale if the registrant
receives verifiable documentation that any of the fumigation compnay employees (i.e.,
CO, SPID, FID) failed to conduct critical safety procedures in use of its residential fumigant.
12

•

The registrant must notify in writing the fumigation company, all Florida distributors of
the registrant’s residential fumigant, and FDACS of the probation or stop sale.
Fumigation companies must have at least two operational, calibrated sulfuryl fluoride
clearence devices. Fumigation companies must register their sulfuryl fluoride clearance
devices in a registry on the FDACS electronic notification website.
Fumigation companies must submit a Notice of Fumigation (NOF) to an FDACS website at
least 24 hours before the fumigaton. This NOF website is linked to the sulfuryl fluoride
clearance device registry and registrant notification for stop sale. A fumigation company
which does not have at least two operational, calibrated sulfuryl fluoride clearance
devices or is placed on stop sale by a registrant or FDACS can no longer submit a NOF to
the FDACS website.
Fumigation companies are required to document, using the most complete log form of
any state, information about each site fumigated. FDACS worked with Association of
Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials (ASPCRO), Florida Pest Management
Association (FPMA), Certified Pest Control Operators (CPCO) of Florida, National Pest
Management Association (NPMA), and Region 4 of EPA to review information
documented in the log form to ensure it would meet the requirements of an FMP.

The documentation of fumigation employees with an identification card, who have on the job
fumigation training by their employer, have passed rigorous state certification exams (for the CO
and SPID), and have verifiable registrant-provided stewardship training through the CEU process
fulfill labeling requirements for residential fumigants of having certified and trained personnel in
charge of the fumigation, especially when “two trained persons” must be present, for regulatory
compliance. The unique FDACS Sulfuryl Fluoride Clearance Device registry, NOF system, and
extensive Fumigation Log provide the necessary documentation of information needed for a
Fumigation Management Plan. In addition, the linking of registrant and FDACS stop sale
notifications and the Sulfuryl Fluoride Clearance Device registry with the NOF system ensures
that a fumigation company without two operational, calibrated sulfuryl fluoride clearance
devices or with other documented safety violations cannot continue to purchase or conduct
fumigations using a residential fumigant until these violations are verified to be corrected. The
regulations and processes in Florida that meet the requirements of an FMP are more extensive
and comprehensive than those proposed by EPA for sulfuryl fluoride residential fumigant
labeling. For this reason, Florida fumigators should be waived from any specific FMP
requirements for sulfuryl fluoride residential fumigant labeling as currently proposed by EPA.

Complicated and Lengthy Rulemaking Process in Florida
Implementing many of the recommendations in the FDACS OIG report to address the 2015
Sunland incident required extensive revisions and additions in the Florida rule requirements for
fumigators who use residential fumigants (Chapter 5-E14) and for registrants of residential
fumigants (Chapter 5E-2.0312). These changes are highlighted in yellow in Chapter 5E-14
(Appendix II) which required the development of many new forms, including the Special Taking
to Perform Fumigation Affidavit Form, FDAS-13002, 01/17 (Appendix VII), Stewardship
Monitoring Report Form, FDACS-13003 01/17 (Appendix VIII) Stewardship Program Attendee
Form, FDACS-13004 01/17 (Appendix IX). Registrant Notification Stewardship Compliance Action
Form, FDACS-13001, 01/17 (Appendix X), and Fumigation Log Form, FDACS-13000, 01/17
(Appendix XI). A new section was added to Chapter 5E-2 entitled “Additional Registration
Requirements For Registrants of Structural Fumigants Labeled For Application to Residential
Structures,” (Chapter 5E-2.0312, Appendix IV).
These revisions to Florida rules involved two phases, which took nearly two years to complete.
The first phase was to amend state statutes to give FDACS the authority to promulgate all the
new rules required to address the Sunland incident. Revisions in two state statutes, 482.051 and
487.051, were required and are listed in Appendices XIII and XVI, respectively. By the time the
Sunland incident occurred, FDACS had already created its omnibus bill with requested legislative
changes to meet the annual legislative process cycle in Florida. Instead, FDACS had to identify
one member in both the House and the Senate of the Florida state legislature to sponsor a bill
specific for the statute changes required to address the Sunland incident. Then the Speaker of
the House and the President of the Senate had to assign the bill to three committees in each
branch (i.e., a total of six committees) for review. The proposed changes to the statutes were
relatively simple, not controversial, and did not require additional funding. Therefore, FDACS
was able to find influential sponsors in the House and Senate to sponsor the bill and had the
support of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. As a result, the bill moved
without challenge to meet the deadlines for the following required actions:
November 20, 2015: Deadline for submitting request for draft of the bill.
January 8, 2016: Deadline for approving final drafts of the bill.
January 12, 2016: Deadline for filing the bill for introduction into the legislature.
February 27, 2016: The day the bill was certified.
March 25, 2016: The Governor signed the legislation that approved the changes to Florida
Statutes 482 and 487.
July 1, 2016: The revised statues went into effect on this date.
14

The second phase was to amend the state rules to implement the recommendations of the FDACS
OIG report to address the Sunland incident. FDACS immediately started the rulemaking process
in July 2016, as permitted by the revised statutes, to complete the required actions by the
following dates:
July 14, 2016: A notice of rule development was published online in the Florida Administrative
Register (FAR), the official compilation of agency notices published each day.
September 23, 2016: FDACS held the first of several workshops for fumigators, registrants,
distributors, pest control associations, University experts, and others in the fumigation
industry to develop and revise the proposed rule language to address the recommendations
for the FDACS OIG report. FDACS worked with Association of Structural Pest Control
Regulatory Officials (ASPCRO), National Pest Management Association (NPMA), FPMA, CPCO
of Florida, and Region 4 of EPA to review proposed rule language. Rule language was revised
and created for Rule 5E-14 (highlighted sections in Appendix II) and 5E-2.032 (Appendix IV).
The drafted rules then required approval from the Florida Commissioner of Agriculture, Adam
Putnam.
April 17, 2017: FDACS submitted a copy of the rule and supporting materials to Joint
Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) 21 days prior to adoption. JAPC reviewed the
rule for any technical and substantive errors and consulted with FDACS. No hearings were
requested, and the validity of the rule was not challenged by any substantially affected
person.
May 7 2017: The new rules for 5E-14 (highlighted sections in Appendix II) and 5E-2.032
(Appendix IV) were adopted.
June 1, 2017: The new rules for 5E-14 (highlighted sections in Appendix II) and 5E-2.032
(Appendix IV) were implemented.
The regulations and processes in Florida that meet the requirements of an FMP are more
extensive and comprehensive than those proposed by EPA sulfuryl fluoride residential fumigant
labeling. For this reason, Florida fumigators should be waived from any specific FMP
requirements for sulfuryl fluoride residential fumigant labeling as currently proposed by EPA. In
addition, any revisions in the comprehensive FMP process mandated by Florida regulations, as
required by labeling changes in sulfuryl fluoride residential fumigants, would take years to
complete following the complicated Florida rulemaking process. During this time period there
would be confusion for Florida fumigators and regulators as to which FMP regulations have
precedence if there is any conflict between state rules and labeling requirements.

APPENDIX I. Charges made by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
against Sunland Pest Control Services Inc. for using Zythor, a restricted use pesticide, in manner
inconsistent with its labeling during fumigation of a single-family residence conducted in Palm
City, Florida in August 2015.
(A) Prior to the application of Zythor, Sunland
(1) Failed to provide the required Zythor Fumigant Structure Occupant Fact Sheet to an adult
occupant of the structure to be fumigated;
(2) Failed to open all operable interior doors, openings to rooms, attics, sub-areas, storage
rooms and closets; and
(3) Failed to shut off natural gas service to the structure at the main service valve.
(B) Subsequent to Application of Zythor and During Aeration and Clearance Sunland
(1) Failed to have two persons trained in the use of the restricted use pesticide, present on
site from the first opening of the tent seal until securing of the structure at the end of the
initial aeration period;
(2) Failed to use a required, approved respiratory protection device to enter the fumigated
space at the first opening on the tent seal and during the aeration procedure when the
concentration of the restricted use pesticide within the breathing zone of the fumigated
space is unknown;
(3) Failed to aerate the fumigated space with all operable exterior windows and doors open,
aided by the use of one or more fans capable of displacing at least 5,000 cubic feet of air
per minute, for a minimum of one hour.
(4) Failed to post standard warning signs around the fumigated structure during the removal
of the tent and ensuring those warning signs remain posted until aeration was complete
and final clearance for re-occupancy was given; and
(5) Failed to conduct a required clearance of the fumigated structure following a complete
aeration procedure by sampling the air within the breathing zone of the fumigated space
with an approved and properly calibrated Low Fumigant Level Detection Device until
measured levels of the restricted use pesticide were less than one part per million within
the
breathing
zone
of
the
fumigated
space.
(C) Clearance and Re-Occupancy Notification Sunland failed to:
(1) Hang a clearance and re-occupancy notice on the front entrance to the fumigated
structure without completing the mandated aeration and clearance procedure; and
(2) Failed to post the clearance and re-occupancy notice on all other exterior doors to the
fumigated structure.

Appendix II. Cited Sections of Florida Chapter 5E-14.
5E-14.102 Definitions.
(19) “Fumigation Employee” means any of the following persons who is an employee of a licensee
or a person conducting fumigation at the direction of or under the control of a licensee:
(a) Certified Operators in the fumigation category;
(b) Special Identification Cardholders;
(c) Employee Identification Cardholders with the Fumigation Identification Card
endorsement.
(20) “Residential Fumigant” means a registered pesticide labeled for structural fumigation
including or encompassing a residential area in the state of Florida.
5E-14.104 Prohibited Acts.
(7) Licensees shall not purchase a residential fumigant or perform fumigation using a residential
fumigant unless the licensee and their fumigation employees have agreed to and are in
compliance with the label requirements and Stewardship Policy requirements for the residential
fumigant as defined in rule 5E-2.0312, F.A.C.
(8) A licensee’s fumigation employee shall not perform or assist in a fumigation unless the
employee has completed all training required by the Stewardship Policy for the residential
fumigant to be used in the fumigation, as set forth in rule chapters 5E-14 and 5E-2, F.A.C.
5E-14.108 Fumigation Requirements – General Fumigation.
(2) Whenever the presence of two (2) persons trained in the use of the fumigant is required by
the fumigant label, at least one of these persons must be either a certified operator of fumigation
or a designated special identification fumigation cardholder. The second person shall be a
certified fumigation operator, a special identification cardholder, or an identification cardholder
with a Fumigation Identification Card endorsement on the employee identification card, which
may be obtained as provided in subsection 5E-14.1421(5), F.A.C. Two (2) trained persons shall be
present at each fumigation site for the introduction of the fumigant, entry during fumigation, and
from the start of aeration (first opening of the seal) until the active aeration period with all
operable doors and windows open, if required by the fumigant label, is completed and the
structure is secured for the remaining aeration period. The certified operator in charge of
fumigation or his designated special identification cardholder shall be present at those times
required by the fumigant label or by subsections 5E-14.108(1), 5E-14.111(4), 5E-14.112(1) and
5E-14.113(1), (2), F.A.C.
(3) It shall be the duty of the certified operator in charge of fumigation to carry out the following:

Appendix II. Cited Sections of Florida Chapter 5E-14 (cont’d).
(a) Train and/or verify training to each special fumigation identification cardholder in proper
fumigation procedures as required by regulations and fumigant label directions, and to know
the location, purpose, use and maintenance of personal protective equipment and fumigant
detection and safety devices and when and how to use this equipment.
(b) Train each identification cardholder, assigned to fumigation work, in basic fumigation
procedures, SCBA (self contained breathing apparatus) use and the proper use of fumigant
safety equipment and to report immediately to the certified operator in charge or his special
fumigation identification cardholder any irregularities or emergencies.
(7) Each business licensee location performing fumigation must own at least two, label-approved,
clearance devices so that at all times, a licensee has access to a properly functioning clearance
device which must be calibrated in accordance with either the device manufacturer or the
fumigant label directions, whichever is more restrictive.
(8) Licensees performing fumigations using a residential fumigant must ensure that all
functioning and non-functioning fumigant clearance devices being used by the licensee are
recorded within the department’s electronic fumigation notification website at
http://fumigation.freshfromflorida.com. Information recorded must include the name of the
manufacture, serial number, last known date of calibration and operational status of each device.
The department shall grant access to third parties for the purpose of verifying that the records
maintained on the fumigation notification website are accurate. It is solely the licensee’s
obligation to ensure that all data submited to the deparment is accurate.
(9) Licensees performing fumigations with a residential fumigant must agree to, in writing, and
be in compliance with the Stewardship Policy requirements for the residential fumigant used,
including having completed all training and quality assurance review(s) required under the
relevant Stewardship Policy. New fumigation employees must receive Initial Stewardship
Training on the residential fumigant(s) used by the licensee within 60 days of their first day of
employment by the licensee, if the new fumigation employee did not receive that stewardship
training earlier in the calendar year. Current employees of the licensee who transition to working
as fumigation employees must receive Annual Stewardship Training on residential fumigant(s)
used by the licensee within 60 days of receiving their new identification cards (e.g. as a certified
operator for fumigation, a special identification cardholder, or an ID cardholder with a fumigation
endorsement) if they did not receive that stewardship training earlier in the calendar year.
(10) A licensee subcontracting a residential fumigation job to another licensee shall inform the
subcontracted licensee of the residential fumigant to be used based on the residential fumigant
fact sheet provided to the customer. The subcontracted licensee shall use the residential
fumigant as designated by the contracting licensee and must provide proof of stewardship
training for the residential fumigant designated by the contracting licensee upon request.

Appendix II. Cited Sections of Florida Chapter 5E-14 (cont’d).
5E-14.110 Fumigation Requirements – Notices.
(1) Each licensee, before performing general fumigation, shall notify the department at least
twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the fumigation period. Notification shall be made utilizing
the
department’s
electronic
fumigation
notification
website
http://fumigation.freshfromflorida.com or by submitting by facsimile, a completed Notification
of Fumigation, (FDACS-13667, Rev. 03/17), which is hereby adopted and incorporated by
reference and available online at http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref08120, to the fascimile number located on the form. The notice shall state the following:
(a) Company name and business location address.
(b) Accepted common or trade name and active ingredients of fumigant to be used.
(c) Name of certified operator in charge or the designated certified operator(s) or special
fumigation identification card holder(s) for the fumigation, together with her or his day and
night telephone numbers.
(d) Location (address), county, and type of structure (single family, multi-family, commercial,
or other) and number of structures to be fumigated.
(e) Date of fumigation.
(f) Target pest.
(g) Contractor’s name (if subcontracted).
(h) Approximate duration of fumigation.
(2) Any change(s) in information required in notices by this regulation shall be reported via the
electronic submission website or in writing via facsimile in advance of the fumigation period.
(3) Exceptions: Notification of less than 24 hours is allowed only for verifiable situations affecting
the health, safety, and welfare of the public and severe weather conditions. Notification shall be
made immediately before the fumigation period by advance electronic submission via
http://fumigation.freshfromflorida.com,
or
electronic
mail
to
[email protected], or facsimile to (850)617-7968.
(4) A licensee that performs chamber or vault fumigations on the premises of the licensee’s
licensed business location shall notify the department annually in writing. This notice may be
submitted using the electronic notification system at http://fumigation.freshfromflorida.com.
Information required in the written notification shall include the type (or description) of chamber
being used on the property (such as shipping containers, trucks, PODS, tarpaulin areas, etc.), and
the days of the week and hours during which these fumigations may be performed during the
year of notification. The licensee shall provide the department at least 24 hours notice of any
changes in the days of the week and hours during which fumigations may be performed.

Appendix II. Cited Sections of Florida Chapter 5E-14 (cont’d).
5E-14.142 Responsibilities and Duties – Records, Reports, Advertising, Applications.
(3) Licensees performing fumigation with a residential fumigant, their employees, certified
operators, and special identification cardholders shall comply with the label requirements and
Stewardship Policy requirements of the residential fumigant being used.
(a) In addition, the following safety procedures shall be followed to enhance safety in the
clearance of structures fumigated with a residential fumigant. The certified operator for the
contracted licensee shall maintain records relating to the fumigation clearance of structures
fumigated with a residential fumigant. Such records shall consist of the following information
for each application:
1. Name and license number of the licensee responsible for the fumigant application;
2. Name of the person who applied the fumigant;
3. Date and time of the following: fumigant introduction, start of aeration, completion of
aeration, and final testing for clearance;
4. Location of treatment site;
5. Detailed information relating to each label required clearance period including names
of employees and personnel involved and start and stop times;
6. Total volume (cubic feet or other appropriate units) of the fumigated space;
7. Brand name or EPA registration number of the pesticide product applied; and,
8. Total amount in pounds or ounces, of fumigant and warning agent applied.
(b) Licensees or applicators operating in the category of fumigation shall use the Fumigation
Log, (FDACS-13000, 01/17), which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference and
available online at http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-07904, while
onsite. Licensees or applicators operating in the category of fumigation pursuant to section
482.111(2)(a), F.S., may use an alternative fumigation log form only if it incorporates all
information required to be recorded in the current Fumigation Log, (FDACS-13000, 01/17).
All licensees performing fumigation shall retain any records relating to the fumigation
required by this rule for a period of two (2) years from the date of the fumigation. Upon
request by the department, the licensee or certified operator in charge shall make available
the records required to be maintained under this rule and shall permit the authorized
representative to copy or photograph any of the records. The original records shall be
maintained by the licensee.
(4) The required information shall be recorded no later than two (2) working days after the date
of application and may be incorporated into other business transaction records.

Appendix III. Cited Sections of Florida Chapter 482 in relation to structural fumigation.
482.091 Employee identification cards.
(1)(a) Each employee who performs pest control for a licensee must have an identification card
(b) Either the licensee or the licensee’s certified operator in charge must apply to the
department for an identification card for each employee who will perform pest control
therefor within 30 days after employment of that employee, on a form prescribed by the
department. The licensee and the licensee’s certified operator in charge are jointly
responsible for obtaining such identification cards.
(2)(a) An identification cardholder must be an employee of the licensee and work under the
direction and supervision of the licensee’s certified operator in charge and shall not be an
independent contractor. An identification cardholder shall operate only out of, and for
customers assigned from, the licensee’s licensed business location. An identification
cardholder shall not perform any pest control independently of and without the knowledge
of the licensee and the licensee’s certified operator in charge and shall perform pest control
only for the licensee’s customers.
(b) The identification card shall be carried on the employee’s person while performing or
soliciting pest control and shall be presented on demand to the person for whom pest control
is being performed or solicited, to any inspector of the department, or to any of such other
persons as are designated by the rules of the department.
(c) An employee may not perform pest control without carrying on her or his person a current
identification card affixed with the employee’s signature and current photograph.
(d) An identification cardholder may use only the licensee’s pesticides, equipment, and other
materials when performing pest control.
482.111 Pest control operator’s certificate.
(1) The department shall issue a pest control operator’s certificate to each individual who
qualifies under this chapter. Before issuance of an original certificate, an individual must
complete an application for examination, pay the examination fee required under s. 482.141, and
pass the examination. Before engaging in pest control work, each certified operator must be
certified as provided in this section.
(10) Prior to the expiration date of a certificate, the certificate holder must complete 2 hours of
approved continuing education on legislation, safety, pesticide labeling, and integrated pest
management and 2 hours of approved continuing education in each category of her or his
certificate or must pass an examination given by the department. The department may not renew
a certificate if the continuing education or examination requirement is not met.

Appendix III. Cited Sections of Florida Chapter 482 in relation to structural fumigation (cont’d).
(a) Courses or programs, to be considered for credit, must include one or more of the following
topics:
1. The law and rules of this state pertaining to pest control.
2. Precautions necessary to safeguard life, health, and property in the conducting of pest
control and the application of pesticides.
3. Pests, their habits, recognition of the damage they cause, and identification of them by
accepted common name.
4. Current accepted industry practices in the conducting of fumigation, termites and other
wood-destroying organisms pest control, lawn and ornamental pest control, and
household pest control.
5. How to read labels, a review of current state and federal laws on labeling, and a review
of changes in or additions to labels used in pest control.
6. Integrated pest management.
(b) The certificate holder must submit with her or his application for renewal a statement
certifying that she or he has completed the required number of hours of continuing
education. The statement must be on a form prescribed by the department and must identify
at least the date, location, provider, and subject of the training and must provide such other
information as required by the department.
482.132 Qualifications for examination and certification.
(2) Each applicant for examination for a pest control operator’s certificate must possess the
minimum qualifications specified in one of the following paragraphs:
(a) Three years’ employment as a service employee of a licensee that performs pest control
in the category or categories in which the applicant seeks certification, 1 year of which
employment must have been completed in this state during the year immediately preceding
application for examination.
(b, c)[Does not apply to fumigation]
(d) A 2-year degree in general pest control technology or the equivalent from a college or
university, with advanced training of 20 or more semester hours or 30 or more quarter hours
of credit in entomology, plus 1 year of employment as a service employee of a

Appendix III. Cited Sections of Florida Chapter 482 in relation to structural fumigation (cont’d).
licensee that performs pest control in any category or categories. Such an applicant is
qualified for all examinations.
(e) Twenty-four semester hours or 36 quarter hours of courses in entomology, pest control
technology, and related subjects, plus 1 year of employment as a service employee of a
licensee that performs pest control in the category of general household pest, termite, and
fumigation. Such an applicant is qualified only for examination in the categories of general
household pest control, termite and other wood-destroying organisms pest control, and
fumigation.
482.141 Examinations.
(1) Each individual seeking certification must satisfactorily pass an examination which must be
written but which may include practical demonstration. The department shall hold at least two
examinations each year. An applicant may seek certification in one or more categories.
482.151 Special identification card for performance of fumigation.
(1) Any individual who performs fumigation must be a special identification cardholder, unless
such individual is a certified operator who is certified in the category of fumigation. When
performing fumigation, a special identification cardholder or certified operator may act only
under the direction and supervision of the certified operator in charge.
(2) The department shall prescribe by rule the qualifications, privileges, duties, and limitations of
holders of special identification cards.
(3) The department may issue special identification cards to qualified individuals who pass
written examinations that may include practical demonstration. The application forms shall be
prescribed by the department.
(4) The department, in its rules, shall provide for such matters as required qualifications for
applicants for examination, written or practical phases or categories of examinations, and time
of examinations.
(8) Prior to the expiration date of a special identification card, the cardholder must:
(a) Complete 2 hours of approved continuing education on legislation, safety, and pesticide
labeling and 2 hours of approved continuing education in the fumigation category; or
(b) Pass an examination in fumigation given by the department.

Appendix IV. Florida Chapter 5E-2.0312 Additional Registration Requirements For Registrants
of Structural Fumigants Labeled For Application to Residential Structures.
(1) Stewardship Policy. Each registrant of a residential fumigant shall adopt and maintain a
written Stewardship Policy applicable to each residential fumigant registered with the
department. Registrants must submit a copy of each Stewardship Policy to the department prior
to selling or distributing a residential fumigant in the state of Florida and within 30 days of making
any changes to the policy. A registrant shall not sell or distribute a residential fumigant to any
licensee who has not agreed, in writing, to the Stewardship Policy for the residential fumigant
sold or distributed.
(2) The Stewardship Policy shall include the following:
(a) Training requirements. All stewardship training shall be conducted by the registrant or
their designated representative including distributors and contractors, for all fumigation
employees that perform fumigation using the registrant’s residential fumigant.
1. There shall be an Initial Stewardship Training and an Annual Stewardship Training. All
related courses, sessions, and instruction must be identified accordingly.
2. The Initial Stewardship Training shall include:
a. Proper use, handling, and storage of the registrant’s residential fumigant;
b. The proper use and calibration requirements for label-approved clearance
detection devices;
c. The proper use of label-required safety equipment including the self contained
breathing apparatus;
d. Review of the label, manual, Safety Data Sheets, safety procedures, and
Stewardship Policy for the registrant’s residential fumigant; and,
e. Dosage calculation for the registrant’s residential fumigant.
3. The Annual Stewardship Training shall include:
a. Review of the proper use, handling, and care of safety equipment and clearance
detection devices;
b. Review of labeling and registrant stewardship requirements for worker protection
and public safety;
c. Review of any updates to registrant’s residential fumigant labeling; and,
d. Review of any updates to registrant’s residential fumigant Stewardship Policy.
(b) Quality assurance reviews (QAR): QARs must be conducted by the registrant or their
designated representative at least once per calendar year for each licensee using the
registrant’s residential fumigant. The QAR shall include an on-site observation of the
licensee’s fumigation employees conducting a structural fumigation using the registrant’s
residential fumigant. The QAR may be conducted at different sites and on different
fumigation employees of the licensee in order for the registrant to complete subparagraphs
1. and 2.

Appendix IV. Florida Chapter 5E-2.0312 Additional Registration Requirements For Registrants
of Structural Fumigants Labeled For Application to Residential Structures (cont’d).
1. The QAR shall include observations of:
a. Preparation of structure for fumigation;
b. Introduction of chloropicrin and registrant’s residential fumigant;
c. Initiation of aeration and active aeration; and,
d. Final clearance testing.
2. The QAR shall include verification that the following items are at the fumigation site:
a. Two (2) self-contained breathing apparati according to the product label;
b. Secondary locks;
c. Proper signage in accordance with Rule 5E-14.112, F.A.C.;
d. Registrant’s residential fumigant label-approved clearance devices;
e. Registrant’s residential fumigant label-required personal protective equipment.
3. The registrant or designated representative must document the date, licensee’s name,
fumigation employee(s) observed, phase of fumigation process observed, and registrant
representative conducting the QAR. These records shall be maintained for a two-year
period from the date of the fumigation and are subject to department inspection.
(c) Probation and Stop Sale. The Stewardship Policy shall include procedures for the issuance
of probation or stop sale notices to licensees who use the registrant’s residential fumigant.
The Stewardship Policy shall also describe options for corrective actions to be completed by
a licensee in the event the registrant places a licensee on probation or issues a stop-sale
notice and shall describe how corrective actions shall be determined.
1. The registrant shall place a licensee on probation or issue a stop-sale notice to a
licensee if the registrant receives verifiable documentation of an observation by the
registrant’s employee or designated representative or a report of an inspection
conducted by the department that the licensee has failed to follow critical safety
procedures including the proper use of the following as determined by the registrant’s
residential fumigant label and Rule Chapters 5E-2 and 5E-14, F.A.C.:
a. Chloropicrin;
b. Self-contained breathing apparatus;
c. Approved clearance devices;
d. Secondary locks and barricades, or
e. Any other safety procedure critical to the protection of workers, bystanders,
homeowners, or the public as prescribed by the residential fumigant’s label and Rule
Chapters 5E-2 and 5E-14, F.A.C.

Appendix IV. Florida Chapter 5E-2.0312 Additional Registration Requirements For Registrants
of Structural Fumigants Labeled For Application to Residential Structures (cont’d).
2. The registrant shall notify in writing, the licensee, all Florida distributors of the
registrant’s residential fumigant, and the department of a decision to place a licensee on
probation or stop the sale and distribution of a residential fumigant to the licensee, within
15 business days of the registrant receiving confirmation that the licensee has failed to
follow a critical safety procedure as outlined in subparagraph (2)(c)1., of this rule.
3. Notification to the department shall be made by utilizing the department’s electronic
fumigation notification website, http://fumigation.freshfromflorida.com, or by
submitting a completed Registrant Notification of Stewardship Compliance Action
(FDACS-13001, 01/17), which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference and
available online at https://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-07899, by
email to [email protected] or by facsimile to (850)617-7968.
4. The registrant shall place a licensee on probation for no less than six months if the
licensee fails to follow one or more critical safety procedures as outlined in subparagraph
(2)(c)1., of this rule while using the registrant’s residential fumigant. Probation may be
terminated at any time during the probationary period if the licensee completes all
corrective actions recommended by the registrant and submits to a QAR in compliance
with paragraph (1)(b).
5. The registrant shall issue an extended stop sale and stop the distribution of its
residential fumigant to a licensee if within a six-month period, the licensee fails to follow
two or more critical safety procedures as outlined in subparagraph (2)(c)1., while using a
residential fumigant, or if the licensee fails to follow one or more critical safety
procedures while on probation. The registrant shall lift the extended stop-sale only if the
licensee completes all corrective actions recommended by the registrant.
Once the extended stop-sale is lifted, the registrant can resume the sale and distribution
of the registrant’s residential fumigant to the licensee. Upon resuming the sale and
distribution of the residential fumigant to the licensee, the registrant shall place the
licensee on probation for no less than six months. If the licensee fails to follow at least
one critical safety procedure while on probation after the extended stop-sale, the
registrant shall notify the department and recommend suspension or revocation of the
licensee’s license to perform residential fumigations. The registrant shall re-issue the
extended stop-sale notice to the licensee if the department suspends the licensee’s
license to perform residential fumigations. The extended stop-sale shall remain in place
until the department lifts the suspension.
6. The registrant shall issue a permanent stop-sale notice when the department revokes
a licensee’s license to perform residential fumigations.

Appendix IV. Florida Chapter 5E-2.0312 Additional Registration Requirements For Registrants
of Structural Fumigants Labeled For Application to Residential Structures (cont’d).
7. The registrant shall notify all Florida distributors of the registrant’s residential fumigant
in writing when probation or a stop-sale is lifted.
(d) The Stewardship Policy shall require licensees to return any unused residential fumigant
and all residential fumigant containers to the registrant upon notification of a permanent or
extended stop-sale and shall require all Florida distributors of the registrant’s residential
fumigant who are no longer contracted by the registrant for distribution of the registrant’s
residential fumigant to return any unused residential fumigant and any and all residential
fumigant containers to the registrant. At the request of the registrant, a department
representative shall be present at the site of the licensee during the removal of the
registrant’s residential fumigant containers.
(3) Continuing Educational Approval. Registrants or their designated representatives must apply
to the department for Continuing Educational Units (CEU) for all Stewardship Training programs.
Registrants are required to use the department’s designated CEU registration program website
at https://ceu.freshfromflorida.com/ or submit as instructed on the Request for Granting
Continuing Education Units (CEUs) For Renewal of Pesticide Applicator Licenses and Certificates,
(FDACS- 13326, Rev. 10/13) form which is incorporated by reference in Rule 5E-9.029, F.A.C.
(a) The department shall approve Annual and Initial Stewardship Training programs for the
granting of CEUs in fumigation when the Stewardship Training programs meet the criteria set
forth in Rule 5E-9.029, F.A.C. Annual Stewardship Training will be allocated one (1) fumigation
CEU. Initial Stewardship Training will be allocated two (2) fumigation CEUs. All Stewardship
Training programs shall be conducted in-person and must comply with paragraph (2)(a), of
this rule.
b) The department shall be allowed to attend and monitor Stewardship Training courses
conducted by the registrant to evaluate whether the training requirements set forth in
paragraph (2)(a), of this rule, have been met. Department inspectors shall document their
observations using the Stewardship Monitoring Report, (FDACS-13003, 01/17) which is
hereby adopted and incorporated by reference and available online at
https://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-07900. Department inspectors will
also provide a copy of the report to the course provider.
(c) The registrant or designated representative must conduct the Annual Stewardship
Training for all licensees who use the registrant’s residential fumigant. Licensees must
complete the Annual Stewardship Training by June 1 of each calendar year. Additional Annual
Stewardship Training sessions must be conducted for new fumigation employees hired or first
assigned to fumigation activities after June 1 of a calendar year. Registrants, or their
designated representatives, shall inform licensees who purchase the registrant’s residential
fumigant of Annual Stewardship Training in writing by mail or electronic delivery prior to
training at a time interval specified by the department’s CEU requirements set forth in Rule
27

5E-9.029, F.A.C.
(d) The registrant or designated representative must offer initial stewardship training to
licensees without previous initial stewardship training for the registrant’s residential
fumigant unless the licensee has purchased the registrant’s residential fumigant within the
past three years and completed annual training during that three year period. A licensee or
any of its fumigation employees required to complete the Initial Stewardship Training will not
be eligible to purchase the registrant’s residential fumigant until completion of the Initial
Stewardship Training.
(e) A registrant shall maintain for a period of two years a record of attendance using the
“Stewardship Program Attendee Form,” (FDACS-13004 01/17) which is hereby adopted and
incorporated
by
reference
and
available
online
at
https://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-07901. The registrant shall make
information recorded on this form available for inspection by the department or its
authorized representative upon request. The registrant may substitute their own form as long
as all of the information required by the Stewardship Program Attendee Form, (FDACS 13004
01/17) is incorporated.
(4) Registrants or their designated representatives shall assist the department, at the
department’s request, with removing the registrant’s residential fumigant containers from the
possession of licensees who are subject to a stop-use or stop-work order issued by the
department pursuant to Rule 5E-14.108, F.A.C.

Appendix V. Employment Service Form, FDACS-13627, Rev. 10/15

Appendix VI. Documented Pesticide Application for Certification Exam Qualification Form,
FDACS-13653, Rev.10/15.

Appendix VII. Special Taking to Perform Fumigation Affidavit Form, FDAS-13002, 01/17.

Appendix VIII. Stewardship Monitoring Report Form, FDACS-13003 01/17.

Appendix IX. Stewardship Program Attendee Form, FDACS-13004 01/17.

Appendix X. Registrant Notification Stewardship Compliance Action Form, FDACS-13001,
01/17.

Appendix XI. Fumigation Log Form, FDACS-13000, 01/17.

Appendix XII. Department of Transportation Requirement for Hazmat Employee Training (49
CFR § 172.700 HM-232).
(a) Hazmat employee training must include the following:
(1) General awareness/familiarization training. Each hazmat employee shall be provided
general awareness/familiarization training designed to provide familiarity with the
requirements of this subchapter, and to enable the employee to recognize and identify
hazardous materials consistent with the hazard communication standards of this subchapter.
(2) Function-specific training.
(i) Each hazmat employee must be provided function-specific training concerning
requirements of this subchapter, or exemptions or special permits issued under subchapter
A of this chapter, that are specifically applicable to the functions the employee performs.
(ii) As an alternative to function-specific training on the requirements of this subchapter,
training relating to the requirements of the ICAO Technical Instructions and the IMDG Code
may be provided to the extent such training addresses functions authorized by subpart C of
part 171 of this subchapter.
(3) Safety training. Each hazmat employee shall receive safety training concerning (i) Emergency response information required by subpart G of part 172;
(ii) Measures to protect the employee from the hazards associated with hazardous materials
to which they may be exposed in the workplace, including specific measures the hazmat
employer has implemented to protect employees from exposure; and
(iii) Methods and procedures for avoiding accidents, such as the proper procedures for
handling packages containing hazardous materials.
(4) Security awareness training. Each hazmat employee must receive training that provides
an awareness of security risks associated with hazardous materials transportation and
methods designed to enhance transportation security. This training must also include a
component covering how to recognize and respond to possible security threats. New hazmat
employees must receive the security awareness training required by this paragraph within 90
days after employment.
(5) In-depth security training. Each hazmat employee of a person required to have a security
plan in accordance with subpart I of this part who handles hazardous materials covered by the
plan, performs a regulated function related to the hazardous materials covered by the plan, or
is responsible for implementing the plan must be trained concerning the security plan and its
implementation. Security training must include company security objectives, organizational
security structure, specific security procedures, specific security duties and responsibilities for
each employee, and specific actions to be taken by each employee in the event of a security
breach.
(b) OSHA, EPA, and other training. Training conducted by employers to comply with the
hazard communication programs required by the Occupational Safety and Health

Appendix XII. Department of Transportation Requirement for Hazmat Employee Training (49
CFR § 172.700 HM-232)(cont’d.).
Administration of the Department of Labor (29 CFR 1910.120 or 1910.1200) or the Environmental
Protection Agency
(40 CFR 311.1), or training conducted by employers to comply with security training programs
required by other Federal or international agencies, may be used to satisfy the training
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section to the extent that such training addresses the
training components specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Initial and recurrent training (1) Initial training. A new hazmat employee, or a hazmat employee who changes job functions
may perform those functions prior to the completion of training provided (i) The employee performs those functions under the direct supervision of a properly trained
and knowledgeable hazmat employee; and
(ii) The training is completed within 90 days after employment or a change in job function.
(2) Recurrent training. A hazmat employee must receive the training required by this subpart
at least once every three years. For in-depth security training required under paragraph (a)(5)
of this section, a hazmat employee must be trained at least once every three years or, if the
security plan for which training is required is revised during the three-year recurrent training
cycle, within 90 days of implementation of the revised plan.
(3) Relevant Training. Relevant training received from a previous employer or other source
may be used to satisfy the requirements of this subpart provided a current record of training
is obtained from hazmat employees' previous employer.
(4) Compliance. Each hazmat employer is responsible for compliance with the requirements
of this subchapter regardless of whether the training required by this subpart has been
completed.
(d) Recordkeeping. Each hazmat employer must create and retain a record of current training of
each hazmat employee, inclusive of the preceding three years, in accordance with this section
for as long as that employee is employed by that employer as a hazmat employee and for 90 days
thereafter. A hazmat employer must make a hazmat employee's record of current training
available upon request, at a reasonable time and location, to an authorized official of the
Department of Transportation or of an entity explicitly granted authority to enforce the HMR.
The record must include:
(1) The hazmat employee's name;
(2) The most recent training completion date of the hazmat employee's training;
(3) A description, copy, or the location of the training materials used to meet the requirements
in paragraph (a) of this section;
(4) The name and address of the person providing the training; and
(5) Certification that the hazmat employee has been trained and tested, as required by this
subpart.
37

Appendix XIII. Revisions (in Red) Required in Statute 482.051 for FDACS to Initiate a RuleMaking Process.
482.051 Rules.—The department may adopt rules to implement the provisions of this
chapter. Before proposing the adoption of a rule, the department shall counsel with members
of the pest control industry concerning the proposed rule. The department shall adopt rules
for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of pest control employees and the
general public which require:
(1) That all pesticides or economic poisons be used only in accordance with the registered
labels and labeling or as directed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency or
the department.
(2) That vehicles and trailers used in pest control be permanently marked with the
licensee’s name that is registered with the department. However, vehicles that are used to
perform only sales and solicitation may have temporary or removable markers.
(3) That written contracts be required for providing termites and other wood-destroying
organisms pest control, that provisions necessary to assure consumer protection as specified
by the department be included in such contracts, and that require licensees to comply with
the contracts issued.
(4) That a licensee, before performing general fumigation, notify in writing the
department of the location where the fumigation is to be performed, which notice must be
received by the department at least 24 hours before the fumigation and must contain such
information as the department requires. The department may specify circumstances under
which notification of less than 24 hours is allowed and what notice is required in those
circumstances.
(5) That any pesticide used as the primary preventive treatment for subterranean
termites in new construction be applied in the amount, concentration, and treatment area in
accordance with the label; that a copy of the label of the registered pesticide being applied
be carried in a vehicle at the site where the pesticide is being applied; and that the licensee
maintain for 3 years the record of each preconstruction treatment, indicating the date of
treatment, the location or address of the property treated, the total square footage of the
structure treated, the type of pesticide applied, the concentration of each substance in the
mixture applied, and the total amount of pesticide applied.
(6) That the department may issue an immediate stop-use or stop-work order for
fumigation performed in violation of fumigant label requirements or department rules, or in
a manner that presents an immediate serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the
public, including, but not limited to, failure to use required personal protective equipment,
failure to use a required warning agent, failure to post required warning signs, failure to
secure a structure’s usual entrances as required, or using a fumigant in a manner that will
likely result in hazardous exposure to humans, animals, or the environment.

(7) That the department may require safety procedures for the clearance of residential
structures before reoccupation after fumigation.

Appendix XVI. Revisions (in Red) Required in Statute 487.051 for FDACS to Initiate a RuleMaking Process.
487.051 Administration; rules; procedure.—
(1) The department may by rule:
(a) Declare as a pest any form of plant or animal life or virus which is injurious to plants,
humans, domestic animals, articles, or substances.
(b) Establish procedures for the taking and handling of samples and establish tolerances and
deficiencies where not specifically provided for in this part; assess penalties; and prohibit the
sale or use of pesticides or devices shown to be detrimental to human beings, the
environment, or agriculture or to be otherwise of questionable value.
(c) Determine whether pesticides, and quantities of substances contained in pesticides, are
injurious to the environment. The department shall be guided by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency regulations in this determination.
(d) Establish requirements governing aircraft used for the aerial application of pesticides,
including requirements for recordkeeping, annual aircraft registration, secure storage when
not in use, area-of-application information, and reporting any sale, lease, purchase, rental, or
transfer of such aircraft to another person.
(e) Establish requirements governing the secure storage of pesticides used by aerial
pesticide applicators.
(f) Establish conditions of registration or reregistration for structural fumigants which
include requirements that registrants:
1. Train distributors and end users in safety measures and in proper use, safe storage,
and management of fumigant materials.
2. Obtain continuing education program approval for stewardship training programs.
3. Conduct quality assurance reviews.
4. Report to the department any probation or stop-sale notice issued to end users.
Under such circumstances, the department shall notify all other structural fumigant
registrants of the reported probation or stop-sale notice.
5. Assist the department, upon request, with the removal of fumigant containers from
distributors and end users for compliance with permanent or extended stop-sale notices.

The proposed measures outlined in the EPA’s Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry
Mitigation Measures (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0163) would significantly increase the
reporting burden on fumigators. If EPA were to implement the proposed risk mitigations in
whole or in part, it would significantly change the burdens placed on fumigators. As such, we
encourage EPA to review the ICR following the publication of final risk mitigation by the
Agency. NPMA submitted comments to the docket which included recommendations for
eliminating duplicative and unnecessary reporting associated with the proposed fumigation
management plans for structural fumigations that were proposed in the Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft
Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures. Although the Agency has not published final Re-Entry
Risk Mitigation, we encourage the Agency to review NPMA’s comments on the proposal for
information regarding proposed fumigation management plans for residential/structural
fumigation.
NPMA does not have a method by which to estimate the number of non-soil fumigations are
performed nationwide each year, although fumigations performed on dwellings for the control of
drywood termites in Florida and California are well documented by the state lead agencies in
those states. On average about 120,000 structural fumigations are performed in California and
60,000 in Florida each year.
Question #2 of the Consultation Questionnaire states, “Some homes, buildings, and commodities
may be fumigated every year, by the same pest control company or under contract, such that the
time required for all subsequent, similar applications to the same site is reduced significantly”. It
is uncommon for an individual dwelling to be fumigated for drywood termites by the same
company year after year. Currently, fumigation management plans are not required for
residential fumigations, however recent proposed risk mitigation from the Agency regarding
such plans have been proposed (see above). Reinfestations and subsequent fumigation do occur,
but they are the exception, not the norm. Alternatively, certain facilities (non-residential) which
are fumigated for stored product pests (i.e., warehouses, food processing plants, commodities)
may have scheduled, or contracted services. Fumigation management plans are continuously
reviewed and updated for these facilities.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback regarding Consultation Questionnaire for the
“Soil and Non-Soil Fumigant Risk Mitigation” Renewal ICR. NPMA welcomes the opportunity
for continued dialogue. If you have questions, or need additional information, I can be reached
via telephone or email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Jim Fredericks, PhD, BCE
VP, Technical & Regulatory Affairs
National Pest Management Association

In addition, seven PCOC members participated on a Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel which drafted a 38-page document “Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures” which was submitted by Douglas Products to this docket (see Enclosure 4). These three
submissions outlined many parts of the proposed mitigation by EPA which are unnecessary and/
or unduly burdensome and are enclosed with this letter in response to this ICR. 1

At this time, EPA has not formally responded to the submitted comments by PCOC including those
that affect the ICR and the burdens calculated in the ICR Supporting Statement, such as Fumigation Management Plans, warning signs, and stewardship training. The ICR Supporting Statement
acknowledges, “EPA anticipates publishing the Final Interim Re-entry Mitigation Measures Memorandum, describing necessary label changes for sulfuryl fluoride products which must be implemented by the registrants within 60 days after publication, in the Fall of 2022.” Since EPA intends
to publish its final mitigation measures for sulfuryl fluoride before the existing ICR is renewed on
January 31, 2023, it is appropriate that the EPA proposed mitigation measures for sulfuryl fluoride are reviewed prior to that time and the ICR is amended to reflect the burdens associated with
these new mitigation procedures.

With regard to the current burden estimates, the estimate provided for non-soil fumigants in
Tables 12 through 14 for hourly cost for Certified Applicator (Field Representative in California)
and Pesticide Handler (Second trained person) are inadequate. In California, the hourly cost for a
Field representative (i.e., certified applicator in the California structural fumigation industry) is
about $50.00/hour and for a second trained personal (i.e., pesticide handler) is about $40.00/hour.
These estimates include wages, benefits, workman’s compensation insurance, and costs to maintain employee certifications.
In conclusion, the current ICR Supporting Statement significantly underestimates the burdens
placed on fumigators in California who use sulfuryl fluoride products registered for residential
fumigation because the EPA proposed mitigation measures in the “Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim
Re-entry Mitigation Measures Memorandum” were not considered. PCOC encourages EPA Prior
to submitting the final ICR to OMB, EPA should decide which comments from the PCOC, the Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel, the registrants, and others on its interim mitigation proposal it will
implement, and then update the burden analysis in the ICR Supporting Statement.
I encourage EPA to contact me at PCOC if there are questions about information in any of the
documents PCOC submitted to this docket, or for assistance with the ICR burden analysis for any
proposed mitigation procedures. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Enclosures 2, 3, and 4 are also available on Regulations.gov with Comment IDs: EPA-HQOPP-2009-0136-0231; -0230; and -0327 (Exhibit A), respectively.

Sincerely,

Chris Reardon
Executive Vice President
Pest Control Operators of California

Enclosure 1: PCOC Response to Consultation Questionnaire for the Non-Soil Fumigant Risk Mitigation
Enclosure 2: PCOC response to EPA Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures on Sulfuryl Fluoride
Enclosure 3: PCOC request for a waiver from Fumigation Management Plan (FMP) requirements
Enclosure 4: Sulfuryl fluoride Advisory Panel Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

June 30, 2022

Consultation Questionnaire for the “Soil and Non-Soil Fumigant Risk Mitigation” Renewal ICR
OMB Control No.: 2070-0197; EPA No.: 2451.03
Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0150
Representative Consulted
Name: Pest Control Operators of California (PCOC)
Questions Related to Non-Soil Fumigants
(1)

Publicly Available Data
•

Is the information (e.g., Fumigant Management Plans (FMPs) or training materials) that the Agency
requests available from any public source, or already collected by another office at EPA or by another
agency? (Several fumigants are still in the registration review process, so mitigation is subject to
change.)
Answer: Refer to the cover letter and Enclosures 2, 3, and 4 submitted by PCOC to Docket ID No.:
EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0150. A detailed description of the fumigation logs required in California is
provided below.

•

If yes, where can you find the information? (Does your answer indicate a true duplication, or does
the input indicate that certain data elements are available, but that they do not meet our data needs
very well?)
Answer: Refer to the cover letter and Enclosures 2, 3, and 4 submitted by PCOC to Docket ID No.:
EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0150. A detailed description of the fumigation logs required in California is
provided below.

(2)

Frequency of Collection
•

Can you record, maintain, and distribute the information less frequently and still produce the same
outcome?
Answer: Refer to the cover letter and Enclosures 2, 3, and 4 submitted by PCOC to Docket ID No.:
EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0150. A detailed description of the fumigation logs required in California is
provided below.

•

On average, how many non-soil fumigant applications are performed in any given year?
Answer: In California, about 120,000 sites representing about 150,000 structures (i.e., more than
one structure may be fumigated per site, such as a single family home with a detached garage) are
fumigated annually with sulfuryl fluoride. Based on a survey conducted by Douglas Products in
2018, in California on average about 1,850 structures are fumigated each year by each fumigation
company, including each branch location of a multi-branch company.

•

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

June 30, 2022

distinction between initial and subsequent applications. Due to limited information, EPA has
assumed that every non-soil fumigant application requires a new FMP (except EtO and sulfuryl
fluoride which are still in registration review; therefore, requirements for EtO and sulfuryl fluoride
are subject to change), and that the estimated burden hours are the same for all non-soil fumigant
applications.
o

If applicators typically perform subsequent applications at the same site, can you provide a
rough estimate of how frequently these subsequent applications occur (e.g. about 25%, 50%,
etc. of total applications)? Please list the type(s)/site(s) of these non-soil applications.
Answer: There are two reasons for refumigating a structure for drywood termites. The first
is that the fumigation did not achieve a sufficient dosage of sulfuryl fluoride to control the
drywood termites. This refumigation rate is low and averages about 2% per year.
The second reason for refumigating a structure is that it is reinfested by drywood termites
after the fumigation. The fumigation provides remedial control, but does not leave a
pesticide residue to prevent pest reinfestation. For drywood termites, it takes on average 710 years for new colonies, started by alates (winged reproductive king and queen), to grow
to a size to produce alates. Drywood termite alates are a very visible sign to building
occupants of a drywood termite infestation. This refumigation rate averages about 5% per
year. Unless a fumigation warranty is in place, the property owner/homeowner usually will
get bids from several fumigation companies that may not include the fumigation company
that previously fumigated the structure. The industry standard in California for fumigation
warranties is a three year warranty, which is renewed annually by payment of a renewal fee.
Some structures can be fumigated more frequently if there is a real estate transaction.
Others are fumigated less frequently if the same owner retains the structure. However, it is
unlikely that the same fumigator would refumigate a structure for this second reason
(reinfestation) within an interval that would permit any meaningful reduction in the time
need to prepare an FMP.
Therefore, for the two reasons stated above, in total about 7% of previously fumigated
structures are refumigated each year.

How much time does it take to complete the requirements identified in this ICR for the either
a one-time application or an initial application? For subsequent applications? Please list the
type(s)/site(s) of these non-soil applications.
Answer: Section 1970 (a) of California Code of Regulations Title 16. Division 19. Article 4
requires registered companies handling dangerous gases used in fumigation to compile and
retain a log for each fumigation job. The log form for each fumigation takes about 30-40
minutes per fumigation site to complete throughout the fumigation process, and requires
the following information be recorded:
• Name, address, and company registration certificate number of the prime contractor.
• Name, address, and company registration certificate number of the subcontractor, if
any.
• Address of property.
• Date of fumigation.
• Name and address of owner or his/her agent.
• Date and hour fire department was notified pursuant to Business and Professions
Code section 8505.5.
2

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

June 30, 2022

• Date and hour county agricultural commissioner was notified and method of
notification, where required.
• Property description including type of structure as to details of roofing, walls and the
presence of construction elements, conduits, drains, air ducts, or vacuum systems that
could allow for the passage of fumigant from the structure to be fumigated to any
adjacent or adjoining structure(s), thereby connecting them, and method(s) used to
prevent passage of the fumigant.
• Cubic feet fumigated (Volume).
• Target pest(s).
• Kind of fumigant(s) used.
• US EPA registration number(s) of fumigant(s).
• Name of warning agent and amount used.
• Type of sealing method used.
• Conditions of tarp and seal.
• Weather conditions as to temperature and wind.
• Date and hour fumigant introduced.
• Cylinder number of each fumigant used.
• Weight of each fumigant cylinder before introduction of gas.
• Pounds of fumigant used from each cylinder.
• Total pounds of fumigant used.
• List of any extraordinary safety precautions taken.
10
• Name, signature and license number of operator or field representative releasing the
fumigant.
• First name and surname of crew when fumigant was released, when aeration
commenced, and when property was released for occupancy.
• Indication of whether or not safety equipment was available at the fumigation site at
the time the fumigant was introduced, when ventilation commenced and when the
property was released for occupancy.
• Date and hour aeration commenced.
• Name, signature and license number of operator or field representative commencing
ventilation.
• Type of device(s) used to test for re-entry.
• Name, signature and license number of operator or field representative releasing
property for occupancy.
• Method used to calculate amount of fumigant used.
• Factors used in calculation of fumigant.
• Special notes or comments pertinent to fumigation. (Title 16. Division 19. Article 4.
Section 1970 (a))
Because the above information is specific to the conditions, timing, and personnel for each
fumigation, there is very little time saved in filling out the fumigation log form again if the
fumigation is repeated at the same structure.
EPA is requesting the following additional information be recorded in a Fumigation
management Plan (FMP) which is not currently required in the California fumigation log.
• Posting signs - how many signs, indicate placement
• Date and time of arrival [of crew to prepare the structure for fumigation]

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

June 30, 2022

• List credential numbers of crew members present during introduction of chloropicrin
(warning agent) and fumigant
• List phone numbers of crew members present during introduction of chloropicrin and
fumigant
• Dosing calculator used
• Relative humidity, number of fans, fan amps, fumigant HLT
• Number of chloropicrin introduction sites
• Ounces of chloropicrin per introduction site
• List credential numbers of crew members present during initiation of aeration
• List phone numbers of crew members present during initiation of aeration
• Crew arrival time [for aeration]
• Time seal broken
• Monitoring: yes or no check box
• If yes: location, equilibrium readings, interim readings, terminal readings, hours
elapsed between readings, actual HLT, correction information
• Clearance device: Information on the way the device was calibrated.
• Emergency preparedness/response measure: Provide information in case of an
emergency, including the hospital nearest to the site.
Information not required on the California fumigation log, but listed on the EPA proposed
FMP, is not critical to conducting the fumigation, provides no additional consumer or
worker protection or aids in the diagnosing of the cause of issues may arise during a
fumigation that result in an investigation, fine, and/or disciplinary actions. The specific
reason(s) why each bullet point of additional information requested by EPA is not required
for a fumigation log is described in Table 3 of Enclosure 4: Assessment of Sulfuryl Fluoride
Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures. PCOC submitted a waiver from the FMP
requirements within EPA’s proposed Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation
Measures (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0136-0230) (see Enclosure 3).
PCOC estimates that it will require an additional 30 minutes per fumigation log form to
document the additional information requested by EPA that is not currently required in the
California fumigation log. For 120,000 fumigations conducted annually in California, that
represents an additional 60,000 hours for the Field representative (i.e. Certified Applicator)
at an additional labor cost of $3,000,000 for the industry (based on $50.00/hour). For a
fumigation company, that represents an additional 925 hours for the Field representative
(based on 1,850 fumigations/year) at an additional labor cost of $46,250. There would be
no increase in cost to the California structural fumigation industry if EPA waives the FMP
requirements for California fumigators as requested by PCOC.
(3)

Clarity of Instructions

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

June 30, 2022

log is clearly stated Section 1970 (a) of California Code of Regulations Title 16. Division 19. Article 4 and
is well understood by the structural fumigation industry.
Some of the additional information EPA is proposing to record in an FMP (i.e., fumigation log form) is
confusing as follows:
“Clearance device: Information on the way the device was calibrated” - For sulfuryl fluoride clearance
devices (SF-ExplorIR, CLIRcheck, FumiSpec Lo) which can only be serviced by authorized service
providers, the fumigator does not have this information (i.e., it is not in the User Manual).
“List credential numbers of crew members present during each phase of the fumigation” - “Credential
numbers" not standard terminology for fumigator licensing. Only the certified applicator (and the
special identification cardholder in Florida) has a license number. Other crew members do not have
license numbers.
"Prior to fumigating, the certified applicator supervising the fumigation must verify that a site-specific
fumigation management plan (FMP) exists. The FMP is intended to ensure a safe and effective
fumigation. The certified applicator supervising the fumigation must ensure that the FMP is up-to-date
and applicable to the fumigation before it takes place." - This needs to be reworded because most of
the documentation required is recorded during the fumigation process, and not before the fumigation.
Soil and commodity fumigations are repeated at the same site and may be complex sites, such as food
processing facilities. In these cases, development of a site-specific FMP before the fumigation is useful.
In contrast, residential buildings and other non-industrial buildings are very similar in features that
would affect how the fumigation is conducted. If a fumigation using a residential fumigant is repeated
at a given building, it would typically occur years later as discussed in this questionnaire and is likely be
conducted by another fumigation company. Therefore, a site-specific FMP developed before the
fumigation is not necessary or useful for residential fumigants.
•

Do you understand that you are required to maintain records? How long you are required to maintain
these records?
Answer: Section 1970 (a) of California Code of Regulations Title 16. Division 19. Article 4 requires the
fumigation log form be retained for at least three years.

•

While there no required forms associated with this process, EPA does provide sample FMP templates for
soil fumigants online (https://www.epa.gov/soil-fumigants).
•

Do you use them as a guide for completing the non-soil fumigant requirements, or have you
developed your own format?
Answer. The EPA sample FMP templates for soil fumigation are not relevant to structural
fumigation, and therefore are not useful as guides. As previously discussed, Section 1970
(a) of California Code of Regulations Title 16. Division 19. Article 4 lists specific information
to be recorded in a fumigation log form and provides a template (Form 43M-47) for the
fumigation log. This template is provided in attached Enclosure 3: PCOC request for a
waiver from Fumigation Management Plan (FMP) requirements.

•

If you have developed your own format, why did you choose to do so?
Answer: Most fumigators use a log form as formatted in the template (Form 43M-47) as
5

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

June 30, 2022

described above.
•

Without an available template specification created for non-soil fumigants, has it been
difficult to develop your own format to comply with the non-soil fumigant labels?
Answer: The labeling for sulfuryl fluoride products registered for fumigation of residential
structures do not currently require an FMP. The template (Form 43M-47) for the
fumigation log provides information required to be recorded for each fumigation per
Section 1970 (a) of California Code of Regulations Title 16. Division 19. Article 4.

•

Do you believe that an EPA-developed template for non-soil fumigants will help to reduce
burden?
Answer: No, not for California. The template (Form 43M-47) for the fumigation log
provides information required to be recorded for each fumigation per Section 1970 (a) of
California Code of Regulations Title 16. Division 19. Article 4. The template is well
understood by the California structural fumigation industry.

(4)

Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping
•

Are you completing the FMPs and maintaining records by paper or electronically?
Answer: The majority (over 99%) of the fumigation companies in California use a paper log form. A
small number of companies use electronic devices, such as tablets or iPads, to record data on the log
forms in the field.

•

If you are using paper, is it possible for you to keep records electronically?
Answer: Yes. California regulations permit electronic or digital copies of the original log form are allowed,
provided the copy(s) are readily available at the time requested (e.g. office records check by Structural
Pest Control Board or County Agricultural Commissioner staff or for other purposes).
•



OMB Control No. 2070-0197

June 30, 2022

If you are completing the requirements electronically, in what format (e.g., Word, Excel, online, etc.)?

•

Answer: A PDF form with fillable fields on tablet, iPad, or other electronic device is currently used by
a few California companies for recording information in the fumigation log forms.
•

•

(5)

Burden and Costs
•

The Agency assumes there are some capital costs for soil fumigant users for buffer zone signs and
monitoring equipment, but did not identify similar costs for non-soil fumigants. Are there similar capital
costs for non-soil fumigant applications? Please provide estimates for the capital costs that may be
associated with non-soil fumigant applications.
Answer: A significant potential capital cost from one of EPA’s proposed interim mitigation measures for
sulfuryl fluoride products registered for residential fumigation was the requirement to conduct the
California Aeration Plan (CAP) to aerate structures. Since CAP is already required for use in California, it
does not represent an additional capital cost burden for fumigators in this state.
For fumigators outside of California, the additional equipment (tarps, clamps, snakes, corner pads, CAP
ducts and vents, fans, secondary locks, introduction and monitoring hoses, chloropicrin application pans,
etc.) required to set-up a fumigation using CAP will average $40,000 per truck. Each truck will have a
fumigation crew, typically 3-4 persons, to set-up and take down fumigations. A crew can typically work
at six sites per day depending upon travel time and if structures are average-sized single-family
residences; setting up tarps and fumigation equipment at three houses and taking down tarps and
removing equipment at three houses. A good way to describe the challenges on equipment for CAP is
the current labeled fumigation process is a two-day process so you can use all set-up equipment three
times per week. With CAP it becomes a three-day process which means you can use all the set-up
equipment only two times per week.
The $40,000 per truck does not include the following:
• Additional wear-and-tear on tarping materials to remain on each fumigated structure for an
additional day.
• Cost to purchase additional truck(s) to carry the extra equipment, such as the CAP ducts,
CAP vents, and more fans, if current fumigation vehicles are not configured to carry this
extra equipment.
7

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

June 30, 2022

Cost to change business operations and forms, and to train personnel to conduct CAP.
•

How many non-soil fumigant applications are made annually? Please list the fumigant(s) and site(s)
covered by your estimate.
Answer: As previously discussed, in California, about 120,000 sites representing about 150,000
structures (i.e., more than one structure may be fumigated per site, such as a single family home with a
detached garage) are fumigated annually with sulfuryl fluoride. Based on a survey conducted by
Douglas Products in 2018, in California on average about 1,850 structures are fumigated each year by
each fumigation company, including each branch location of a multi-branch company. These
fumigations are conducted with sulfuryl fluoride products registered for residential fumigation
(Vikane® gas fumigant [Douglas Products] and Zythor® [Ensystex]).
Sites fumigated with these sulfuryl fluoride products include dwellings (including mobile homes and
multi-unit residences), buildings (such as offices, stores, schools, churches, museums, medical and
research facilities, restaurants, municipal buildings, theaters, hotels and motels, etc.) construction
materials, furnishings (household effects), shipping containers and vehicles including automobiles,
buses, surface ships, passenger railcars, and recreational vehicles (aircraft are excluded).

•

How long does it take to complete a non-soil fumigant FMP? Please list the fumigant(s) and site(s)
covered by your estimate.
Answer: As previously described, Section 1970 (a) of California Code of Regulations Title 16. Division 19.
Article 4 requires registered companies handling dangerous gases used in fumigation to compile and
retain a log for each fumigation job. The log form for each fumigation takes about 30-40 minutes per
fumigation site to complete throughout the fumigation process.
As previously discussed, PCOC estimates that it will require an additional 30 minutes per fumigation log
form to document the additional information requested by EPA that is not currently required in the
California fumigation log. For 120,000 fumigations conducted annually in California, that represents an
additional 60,000 hours for the Field representative (i.e. Certified Applicator) at an additional labor cost
of $3,000,000 for the industry (based on $50.00/hour). For each fumigation company (and each
location, for multi-location companies), that represents an additional 925 hours for the Field
representative (based on 1,850 fumigations/year) at an additional labor cost of $46,250. There would
be no increase in cost to the California structural fumigation industry if EPA waives the FMP
requirements for California fumigators as requested by PCOC.
Fumigants used under these regulations are sulfuryl fluoride products registered for residential
fumigation (Vikane® gas fumigant [Douglas Products] and Zythor® [Ensystex]). Sites fumigated with
these sulfuryl fluoride products are listed above.
Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and labor costs associated
with the paperwork involved with this ICR (e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and
costs for conducting studies), are the estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate? If you provide
burden and labor cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA’s, please provide an
explanation of how you arrived at your estimates. Also, please specify the type and site(s) of fumigation.
Answer: Labor rates were not accurate. The hourly cost for a California Field representative (i.e.,
certified applicator in the California structural fumigation industry) is about $50.00/hour and for a
second trained personal (i.e., pesticide handler) is about $40.00/hour. This estimates include wages,
8

OMB Control No. 2070-0197

June 30, 2022

benefits, workman’s compensation insurance, and costs to maintain employee certifications.
The ICR estimated burden costs did not include the EPA proposed in the interim mitigation procedures
for sulfuryl fluoride products registered for residential fumigation. The cost burden of the additional
information, currently not required by California regulations, that EPA is proposing for fumigators to
record on fumigation log forms is repeatedly discussed in this questionnaire.
Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?
Answer: PCOC is not aware of any at this time aside from those discussed above and in Enclosures 2, 3,
and 4 to the cover letter transmitting this questionnaire response.

I will be commenting on several items that are included in the DRAFT EPA proposed labeling
changes. They include the removal of two clearance detectors from the current sulfuryl fluoride
label, warning sign features and placement recommendations, requirement for a Fumigant
Management plan and required information, requirements for registrant stewardship plan and
lastly the removal of aeration procedure 1 and 2 from the current labeling and implementation
of CAP nationwide.
Remove the SF-ExplorIR and Interscan as approved sulfuryl fluoride clearance devices based
on a laboratory evaluation conducted by the EPA Analytical Chemistry Branch (ACB).
In California our fumigators primarily use the Clircheck and SF-ExplorIR clearance devices. I do
agree with the assessment of the Douglas Products Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel.
Advisory Panel Assessment: The Advisory Panel did not review the EPA’s clearance device test
as part of its charge; however, it understands that Douglas Products, and the device
manufacturers have identified a number of issues with the EPA protocol, the testing itself, and
EPA’s interpretation of the test results, all of which will be addressed in comments to be filed
with EPA by Douglas Products. In light of these issues, it is the Advisory Panel’s position that
the manufacturers of the sulfuryl fluoride clearance devices that EPA proposes to remove from
the label should be given time to conduct additional studies to demonstrate that these devices
have sufficient sensitivity to measure sulfuryl fluoride to continue to be used as clearance
devices.
EPA proposal: Add more description of warning sign features and placement to improve their
durability and visibility during the fumigation process.
I do agree with the assessment of the Douglas Products Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel on this
issue.
Advisory Panel Assessment: Fumigators in states that regulate fumigation warning signs in
any manner should be exempt from federal labeling requirements for warning signs. The
preamble to the signage requirements should be revised to make clear that the label’s sign
requirements apply only in states that do not have their own signage requirements.
In California, warning signs must be placed on all seams on first floor level where two tarps
are joined by the fumigator. This may differ with other state requirements.
EPA proposal: Require a Fumigant Management Plan (FMP) that describes specific
information to be documented for each fumigation.
I do agree with the assessment of the Douglas Products Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel on this
issue. On behalf of PCOC I will be submitting a request for a waiver to the requirement EPA is
recommending due to the extensive information and documentation requirements already in

force in California statute and regulations that are maintained by our fumigators as part of their
recordkeeping.
Advisory Panel Assessment: Based on the Advisory Panel’s review, it is reasonable to require
the following categories of information to be either recorded in advance of, during, or after a
fumigation, as appropriate, and modified as information is collected. Any FMP language on the
new labels should make clear when each piece of information is required to be documented,
and any timing requirements should not be unduly burdensome. Therefore, the information
below followed by (B) would be documented before the fumigation; other information would
be documented during the fumigation process. The categories of information below should be
permitted to be recorded in various locations, including fumigation logs, Vikane Fumiguide®
reports, employee records, state notification websites, or other documents and records where
it is currently recorded in hardcopy or electronically to avoid needless duplication of effort.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Fumigation company (B)
Fumigation site address (B)
Type of structure (B)
Target pest(s) (B)
Dosage factor
Tarp condition
Seal condition
Wind (mph)
Volume (1000 cubic feet) (B)
Underseal
Temperature
Hours of Exposure
Name and license number of certified
applicator in charge, and name of
second trained person(s) and certified
applicator(s) assisting with introduction
of sulfuryl fluoride and chloropicrin
Total ounces of chloropicrin introduced

x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x

Cylinder serial number(s) of sulfuryl
fluoride applied
Pounds of sulfuryl fluoride applied
Date and time of fumigant release
Date and time aeration initiated
Name and license number of certified
applicator initiating aeration
Name of second trained person(s) and
certified applicator(s) assisting with
initiating aeration if two trained
persons are required to be present
Date and time final clearance testing
are completed
Name and license number of certified
applicator(s) conducting final clearance
testing
Clearance device model type

EPA proposal: Require specific stewardship plans by registrants to be posted on the EPA
website. These plans will include initial and annual training, who must attend this training,
and training content.
I do agree with the assessment of the Douglas Products Sulfuryl Fluoride Advisory Panel on this
issue.
3|

Advisory Panel Assessment: The proposed definition of persons required to take the stewardship
training should be changed to “All employees (including owner or licensed employee responsible for
managing/supervising the fumigation operations as required by state regulations) who introduce
sulfuryl fluoride, reenter fumigated spaces wearing an SCBA, initiate aeration, and/or conduct final
clearance testing.” The proposed requirement, "For states that do not already require practical
experience as part of their state certification, a field component should be included in the registrant
stewardship training," needs to be deleted because it is not clear that it would legally be possible for
the registrants to do this.
EPA proposal: Replace Aeration Procedures 1 and 2 with the California Aeration Plan (CAP).

PCOC has been instrumental in the development of the California Aeration Plan (CAP) language,
submission to the Department of Pesticide Regulations and adoption in California. One of our
standing committees, The Fumigation Enforcement Committee, worked for many months to
develop and refine the CAP language that is currently in use. Prior to CAP, fumigators in
California utilized the Tarpaulin Removal Aeration Plan (TRAP) for tarp removal to protect
workers from exposure. It was approved, in the early nineties, at a level when the target value
was 5ppm and was approved under California Code of Regulations Title 3, Division 6, Section
6780.
When the sulfuryl fluoride labeling requirement was changed from 5ppm to 1ppm Tarpaulin
Removal Aeration Plan (TRAP) no longer protected workers and Dow AgroSciences and industry
were tasked with finding an alternate method to protect workers. TRAP was approved as a
safety plan under California code.
Under Section 6780 the fumigation industry was left with three options to protect their
workers:
x

Wear self-contained breathing apparatus when in an unknown atmosphere and
removing tarps

Employ continuous monitoring for all workers removing tarps

Develop a safety plan to protect workers removing tarps to ensure fumigant levels
remain at or below 1ppm.

The best and only practical option for the fumigation industry was a safety plan.
Implementing CAP was time consuming, expensive and had many challenges. They included the
following:
The first challenge was that CAP equipment did not exist. Many prototypes were tried over
several months with small improvements over many years. Without any standard written in the
first approved CAP document describing the equipment that made CAP work some fumigators
made their own inlets and ducts. This proved to be a mistake as CAP, with the deficient
equipment, was not effective and could not be enforced by regulatory inspectors. Because of
this CAP (2) contained equipment specifications and standards and was resubmitted for
4|

approval under Section 6780. That occurred in 2012 and only minor improvements since then
have been made to the equipment.
The most expensive challenge was fumigators had to secure additional tarps, sandbags, clips
and related equipment because, under CAP, tarps remained on the structure three days.
Fumigators were reduced to two cycles per week per tarp. Prior to CAP it was a two-day
process which meant tarps could be used three times per week.
The planning and scheduling of fumigations was changed for all concerned - consumers, prime
contractors and sub-contractors. Scheduling natural gas shut-off and restoration were also
impacted because of the additional day. Crews and routes changed, because of CAP. On the
second day a full crew was not necessary to commence aeration. Conversely, on the third day
more labor was needed because the tarps were removed and the structure was certified for
reentry.
Training of the industry was time consuming and extensive, taking several months to
implement. DPR allowed extra time for implementation. The issue with do-it-yourself
equipment caused lots of consternation for industry as it threatened the integrity of the safety
plan overall.
CAP as it exists today was years in the making and proved to be a good thing for employees,
consumers, fumigation companies and bystanders. After being utilized for over a decade,
fumigators have encountered and worked through all the challenges. All the hard work and
development has been completed.
One critical issue that EPA has overlooked regarding the removal of Aeration Procedures 1 and
2 from the current federal label and replacing those procedures with CAP, is that within CAP
requirements, is language defaulting to Aeration Procedures 1 and 2 in case of a blow-open of
tarps from the structure following the exposure period, and during the 12–24-hour active
aeration period. The default option is also utilized when a tape-seal fumigation occurs, and in
this case, no tarps are used so CAP cannot be performed.
As a safety plan in California, we would not want to see changes to the language as it currently
exists. Perhaps Procedures 1 and 2 can be revisited or amended if it needs to be changed
moving forward after trial work has been conducted. In the short term it must stay until that
happens.
In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to make comments on behalf of the Pest Control
Operators of California Professional Products and our fumigator groups in California. We look
forward to working with EPA to create a safe and manageable plan moving forward.

Sincerely,

Chris Reardon
Executive Vice President
Pest Control Operators of California

Introduction
On May 23, 2021, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened a 60 day
public comment, which was later extended an additional 60 days, on its proposed risk
mitigation procedures for described in the document, Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry
Mitigation Measures (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0136-0105). The proposed risk mitigation procedures
would require significant and extensive labeling changes for sulfuryl fluoride products
registered for residential fumigation, specifically Vikane® gas fumigant (Douglas Products,
Liberty, MO) and Zythor® (Ensystex, Fayetteville, NC). These procedures are proposed in
response to recommendations in the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) 2016 report, Additional
Measures Can Be Taken to Prevent Deaths and Serious Injuries from Residential Fumigations
(No. 17-P-0053). The 2016 OIG report was prompted by two high profile incidents that occurred
in 2015, resulting in serious injury to members of two families in the United States, in Florida
and the US Virgin Islands, due to improper residential fumigation practices.
One of the recommendations made by the EPA OIG was to require Fumigation Management
plans (FMPS). EPA has proposed labeling changes for residential fumigants to describe FMP
requirements. The purpose of this report is to review current California rules and regulations
which govern the actions of fumigators using these products, and mandate specific training
which meet the requirements of an FMP and establish a justification for waiving the FMP
labeling requirements EPA has proposed for California fumigators using either residential
fumigant.
The report provides a summary of California-specific regulations for fumigators who apply
residential fumigants, which include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Fumigation Employees and their required experience and training (page 3).
Additional Training Required (page 4).
Requirements for Renewal of Branch 1 Licenses: (page 4).
CEU Training Course and CEU Course Instructor Requirements (page 6).
Notice of Fumigation (page 7).
Enforcement of CA Bus. & Prof. Codes and Cal. Code of Regulations Associated with
Structural Pest Control (page 8).
7. Pest Control Operators of California (PCOC) Enforcement Committee (page 8).
8. Fumigation Log (page 9).
The report also provides the process required to make changes to the current Fumigation Log
which California fumigators who apply residential fumigants must use. If the currently proposed
FMP requirements were mandated in California, a completely unnecessary process (for reasons
described in the first section) of implementation would be required. This process would likely
cause confusion for California fumigators and regulators as to which FMP regulations have
precedence if there is any conflict between state regulations and labeling requirements. The
1

unintended consequences of any conflicts between California’s well-established and wellfunctioning regulatory structure and EPA’s proposals could be a reduction in the safety of
fumigations in California during, or even after, the implementation process. This outcome and
the associated burdens on California fumigators and their customers can be avoided by waiving
the proposed FMP requirements for Florida fumigators, and potentially for fumigators in other
states that can demonstrate to EPA that they have similarly comprehensive and effective safety
requirements.

Regulations in California for Fumigators Who Apply Residential Fumigants1
In 1935, California passed an act that regulates the practice of structural pest control and
required the creation of a structural pest control board to provide for registration and licensing
of individuals involved in the control of structural pests and to protect the public in the practice
of structural pest control. The Structural Pest Control Board (SPCB) is comprised of four
members of the general public and three individuals from the pest control industry. The SPCB
was removed from the jurisdiction of the California Department of Pesticide Regulations (CAL
DPR) and placed under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Consumer Affairs. The
members of the SPCB license and regulate structural pest control companies and ensure
licensees meet established qualifications and competencies. Their responsibilities include:
•
•
•
•
•

“Developing rules and regulations for licensing, examination, training, and practice
standards, and overseeing the administration of licensing exams.
Issuing licenses in three categories – applicators, field representative, and operators,
and issuing registrations to principal offices and branch offices.
Reviewing consumer complaints about licensees and working to mediate solutions.
Investigating alleged violations of the Structural Pest Control Act or related laws and
regulations, conducting records inspections, and filing disciplinary actions as required.
Conducting and evaluating research on structural pest control.”
(https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/dept/pestboard/transfer.htm)

California maintains separate licenses for specific activities associated with structural pest
control (specific language cited for Sections of CA Bus. & Prof. Code may be found in Appendix
I). These licenses include:
•
•

Branch 1: License required for fumigation (control of household and wood-destroying
organisms using fumigants).
Branch 2: General pest (control of household pests – excludes the use of fumigants).

Residential fumigant is a sulfuryl fluoride product registered for fumigation of residential structures.

•

Branch 3: Termite (control of wood-destroying organisms using insecticides, structural
repairs, and corrections – excludes the use of fumigants). (CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8560
(b)).

Registered companies holding Branch 2 and/or Branch 3 licenses only may advertise fumigation
but may not conduct the fumigation. Instead, they can subcontract the fumigation to a
Registered company holding a Branch 1 license with the consumer’s consent. In doing so, both
parties take on the responsibility for performance and are subject to disciplinary actions if
required (CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8514 (e-g)).
Fumigation Employees and their required experience and training. In California, “fumigation
is only permitted to be conducted under the direct and personal supervision of an individual
who is licensed by the board as an operator or field representative in Branch 1 as set forth in
Section 8560 (CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8505.2).”
Field Representative Initial License Requirements: Individuals seeking a Branch 1 license as a
Field Representative, must apply (Appendix III) to take an examination and submit an
application (Appendix II) for the license within 1 year of successfully passing the exam (score
>70%) (CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8563). The examination must be passed with a minimum score
of 70% and tests an applicant’s knowledge in the following areas:
•
•
•
•
•

The safety laws of the state.
The provisions of the SPCA Business and Professions Code, Division 3 Chapter 14.
Structural Pest Control Operators.
Pesticide used in pest control.
The theory and practice of pest control in the branch thereof for which the applicant
desires to be licensed.
Other state laws, safety or health measures, or practices (CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8566).

Applications for Field Representative Branch 1 Licenses (Appendix III) are only be accepted if
the applicant can provide documentation (Appendix IV) of a minimum of 6 months (800 hours)
of field fumigation training and experience under the immediate supervision of an individual
holding a Branch 1 license (CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8564 (c)).
Operator Initial License Requirements: Individuals applying for an initial Branch 1 Operator’s
license must provide documentation (Appendix V) that they have actual field experience for a
period of not less than 2 year (3200 hours) with at least one year having been as a Field
Representative or be able to demonstrate to the Board that he or she has the equivalent to the
required training and/or experience (CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8562). An examination application
(Appendix VII) must be submitted, and the exam passed with a minimum score of 70%. The
examination requires the individual to have knowledge in the same topics as required for the
Field representative and the following areas:
•

Pesticides.
3

•
•
•
•
•

Pest identification and biology.
Contract law.
Rules and regulations.
Business practices.
Fumigation safety (CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8565.5 (a)).

The application (Appendix VIII) must be submitted within 1 year of having successfully passed a
required examination (CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8561).
Non-Licensed Fumigation Crew Members: Registered companies are permitted to hire workers
who do not hold a Branch 1 license to work fumigation sites. These employees may only
conduct work at fumigation sites once a licensed operator or field representative has
completed the negotiation or signing of the contract for the specific fumigation (CA Bus. & Prof.
Code § 8506.1 (b)). These workers also must be under the direct supervision of a licensed
operator or field representative when completing tasks associated with fumigation. The state
of California has established specific training requirements for employees who handle, use or
work around pesticides. The training includes topics such as pesticide handling, safety,
hazardous materials, etc. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, § 6724) (Appendix VIII). The individual
conducting this training must meet specific requirements as stated in Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, §
6724).
Additional Training Required: Holders of a Branch 1 license who intend to conduct fumigations
at a school site must meet the training requirements associated with the Healthy Schools Act of
2000 as stated in CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8593.2. Completion of this training can count toward
CEU requirements for license renewals.
CAL DPR requires every fumigation company to have a written Respiration Protection Program
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, § 6739 (Appendix IX)) which provides initial and annual training
regarding the use of respirators and in the case of fumigators, Self-contained breathing
apparatus (SCBA). This program also includes a Medical Evaluation certifying that an employee
is medically fit to use a SCBA and an annual FIT test with record retention requirements.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) requires employees who work with or around
hazardous materials to complete the Hazardous Material Employee Training (49 CFR § 172.700
HM-232) (Appendix X). All employees working for a Fumigation Company are considered a
Hazardous Material Employee and must receive this training as required.
The labeling of residential fumigants mandates users (i.e., Branch 1 License holders in CA)
participate in the registrants’ stewardship program. The stewardship program includes initial
and annual stewardship training and an annual stewardship policy to which Branch 1 license
holders must sing and agree to adhere to its stated conditions, policies, and practices.
Requirements for Renewal of Branch 1 Licenses: (Specific language for cited sections of Cal.
Code Reg., tit. 16. may be found in Appendix XI) Individuals, Operators and Field
4

Representatives, holding Branch 1 licenses are required to renew their licenses every three
years. During the time between renewals, the individual must continue to complete approved
training courses to accumulate a total of 16 continuing education units (CEU). CEU courses are
evaluated and approved by the SPCB (Appendix XII), must include a written exam comprised of
a minimum of 10 questions per hour of CEU credit and taught by instructors meeting specific
requirements who are then approved by the Board (Appendix XIII) (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 16. §
1950 (a-d & g)). To receive the CEU credit and a Certificate of Completion (Appendix XIV),
participants must pass the exam with a minimum score of 70% (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 16. §
1950.5). Licensees must be able to verify the completion of a continuing education
requirements whenever requested to do so by the board by providing the Certificate of
Completion (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 16. § 1950 (a)). Of the 16 total CEUs required, a minimum of 4
continuing education hours must be in a technical subject directly related to Branch 1 pest
control and a minimum of 8 hours must be from Board approved courses on the SPCB, the
Rules and Regulations, or structural pest control related agencies’ rules and regulations (Cal.
Code Reg., tit. 16. § 1950 (c-d)). Providers of an activity granted CEUs must notify the SPCB
within 30 days of its presentation and submit a Course Attendance Roster (Appendix XVI) within
5 days after every course instructed (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 16. § 1953 (b-c)).
Table 1 provides a summary of California fumigation employees and the licensing, training and
renewal requirements associated with each employee type.

professional activity), the type of credit being requested (rules and regulations, technical
activity, IPM, or general) and a brief description of the activity. Additionally, the following
items must be provided to assist the board with its evaluation and assigning appropriate CEUs:
•
•
•
•
•

Hour-by- hour course outline
Copies of all materials to be used during training
Copies of all examinations
Copies of any promotional materials
Copy of Certificate of Completion to be provided to licensees completing the course
(Form 43M-18).

All material for approval of an activity for CEUs must be submitted no later than 60 days prior
to the presentation of the activity (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 16. § 1953 (a)).
Individuals who will deliver the training must also provide information to the SPCB for approval.
Information that must be provided on form 43-M-18 includes:
•

•

•
•
•
•

Education information including if the applicant is a credentialed instructor in the course
area, course of study, school/college/university attended, highest degree attained, and
year of graduation
Experience associated with the activity to be taught including completion of training
associated with the subject of the activity - minimum of six months within the last 3
years required.
Activities individual has instructed within the last 5 years associated with the subject of
the activity
SPCB license status
Identification if course/activity author
Last 3 years of employment information.

Activity and Instructor approval is provided by written notification and is in effect for 3 years
(Cal. Code Reg., tit. 16. § 1953 (e)).
Notice of Fumigation. A notice of fumigation must be provided to the County Agricultural (Ag)
Commissioner in the county where the job will be conducted. The notice may be mailed or
given by telephone at least 24-hrs prior to start of the fumigation unless the comissioner has
determined less time is sufficient (CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8505.5 (b)). This notice must include
the property address, city, zip code, fumigation start date, and the fumigation completion date.
The County Ag Departments compile all the notifications for their respective counties into a list
that they use to determine which jobs they are going to inspect each day.
Fumigation companies must also provide notification of the date and place of the fumigation
and chemicals that will be used to the fire department serving the area where the fumigation
will be completed (CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8505.5 (a)). This notification must be made no later
than 2 hours prior to the start of the fumigation.
7

Enforcement of CA Bus. & Prof. Codes and Cal. Code of Regulations Associated with Structural
Pest Control. While not specifically mentioned as part of the proposed FMP, enforcement is
critical to ensuring the actions specified in the California Codes, Regulations and product
labeling are being followed. This would include the accurate completion of the state required
fumigation log.
The Director of Pesticide Regulation is designated by the SPCB as its agent for enforcing the
rules and regulations associated with structural pest and carry out any agreed upon
investagations (CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8616). The County Agricultural Commissioners (CAC) re
designated by the Director of Pesticide Regulation and is responsible for the conduction of
inspections and routine investigations of pesticide use by licensees, registered companies, an
unlicensed individuals involved with structural pest control (CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8616.5 (a)).
The SPCB and the Director of Pesticide Regulation jointly determine the list of types of
investigations that may result in the suspension of a license or company registration, or impose
a fine, and the list of violations that the CAC will reference to the board for disciplinary actions
(CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8616.5 (b)). The SPCB publishes a manual of disciplinary guidelines and
model Disciplinary Orders that is available online as part of the larger manual covering all of the
codes and regulations for structural pest control.
To help ensure the CAC and its employees associated with structural pest control investigation
and enforcement are adequately prepared to complete these tasks, the SPCB and CAL DPR are
responsible for jointly developing a training program specifically to address various aspects of
structural pest control (CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8616).
Pest Control Operators of California (PCOC) Enforcement Committee: PCOC, as it exists today,
has over 1,100 members covering approximately 80% of California’s total volume of pest
control buisness. PCOC works closely with the SPCB and CAL DPR to help develop regulations
that protect the credibility of the industry and the safety of customers. To ensure CAC and its
employees were able to adequately provide oversight for residential fumigation, PCOC
established a voluntary program referred to as the PCOC Enforcement Committee.
Four counties in California are currently part of the program by the California Pest Control trade
association, Pest Control Operators of California (PCOC), that requires fumigation companies to
pay an eight-dollar fee for each fumigation they conduct using a residential fumigant in one of
these four counties. This fee is paid directly to the CAC and is to be used for increased
fumigation oversight. This program requires state legislation and typically has a three-year
renewal. However, the most recent renewal date was extended to five years to allow for it to
coincide with the SPCB renewal. Along with increased oversight and enforcement in these
counties, another benefit is increased communication between the CAC’s and industry
facilitated by quarterly in-person meetings including industry members, regulatory
representatives for the member CAC’s, SPCB, CAL DPR, as well as the registrants and
distributors of residential fumigants, to review and discuss all enforcement actions taken by the
8

member counties during the preceding quarter. This provides the registrants and distributors
opportunities to pinpoint additional training needs as well as possible punitive actions such as
probation periods or stop sales designed to change behavior.
Fumigation Log. Section 1970 (a) of California Code of Regulations Title 16. Division 19. Article
4 requires registered companies handling dangerous gases used in fumigation to compile and
retain for at least 3 years a log for each fumigation job (Form 43M-47, Appendix XV). If a
fumigation is completed by a subcontract fumigator, then the subcontractor is responsible for
completing the log and forwarding a copy of the log to the primary contractor within 10 days of
having completed the fumigation. The log form for each fumigation must include the following
information:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Name, address, and company registration certificate number of the prime contractor.
Name, address, and company registration certificate number of the subcontractor, if
any.
Address of property.
Date of fumigation.
Name and address of owner or his/her agent.
Date and hour fire department was notified pursuant to Business and Professions Code
section 8505.5.
Date and hour county agricultural commissioner was notified and method of
notification, where required.
Property description including type of structure as to details of roofing, walls and the
presence of construction elements, conduits, drains, air ducts, or vacuum systems that
could allow for the passage of fumigant from the structure to be fumigated to any
adjacent or adjoining structure(s), thereby connecting them, and method(s) used to
prevent passage of the fumigant.
Cubic feet fumigated (Volume).
Target pest(s).
Kind of fumigant(s) used.
US EPA registration number(s) of fumigant(s).
Name of warning agent and amount used.
Type of sealing method used.
Weather conditions as to temperature and wind.
Date and hour fumigant introduced.
Cylinder number of each fumigant used.
Weight of each fumigant cylinder before introduction of gas.
Pounds of fumigant used from each cylinder.
Total pounds of fumigant used.
List of any extraordinary safety precautions taken.
9

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Name, signature and license number of operator or field representative releasing the
fumigant.
First name and surname of crew when fumigant was released, when aeration
commenced, and when property was released for occupancy.
Indication of whether or not safety equipment was available at the fumigation site at
the time the fumigant was introduced, when ventilation commenced and when the
property was released for occupancy.
Date and hour aeration commenced.
Conditions of tarp and seal.
Name, signature and license number of operator or field representative commencing
ventilation.
Type of device(s) used to test for re-entry.
Name, signature and license number of operator or field representative releasing
property for occupancy.
Method used to calculate amount of fumigant used.
Factors used in calculation of fumigant.
Special notes or comments pertinent to fumigation. (Title 16. Division 19. Article 4.
Section 1970 (a))

The state required fumigation log requires the same critical information as the EPA is proposing
for the FMP. Information not found on the California fumigation log, but listed on the EPA
proposed FMP, is not critical to conducting the fumigation, provides no additional consumer or
worker protection or aids in the diagnosing of the cause of issues may arise during a fumigation
that result in an investigation, fine and/or disciplinary actions. Mandating a change to the EPA
FMP would require changes to the California Code of Regulations with a review by the SPCB.
This is often a lengthy and frustratingly difficult activity and will result in the need for additional
eduction not only of Branch 1 licensees and registered companies, but also of CACs and their
associated employees tasked with enforcing California Codes and Regulations associated with
structural pest control.
Making Changes to the California Fumigation Log. Changes to California Fumigation Log would
require SPCB committee review and approval (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 16. § 1970: Standards and
Record Requirements) as required by the CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 8505.13; “A registered
company shall maintain a log of each fumigation job performed by it in this state. The log shall
be in the form required by the regulations of the board and shall be preserved for a period of at
least three years, during which time it shall be available at all times during business hours for
inspection by the board and its authorized representatives.” Changes to the requirements
contained in Section 1970 are not quickly accomplished. The recent minor changes to the
Occupant Fumigation Notice (OFN) used in California and the corresponding regulation, Cal.
Code Reg., tit. 16. § 1970.4, took two separate committees over a year to agree on changes.
These changes are still going through the SPCB for final adoption. Based on this example,
10

reaching agreement, and receiving approval to make a change to the current required
fumigation log will be difficult and would not be able to be completed within the timeframe
suggested by the EPA for implementation of their suggested mitigation measures in response to
the EPA OIG Report.

APPENDIX I. Cited Sections of California Business and Professional Code, Division 3. Chapter
14. Structural Pest Control Operators.
Article 1. General Provisions. Section 8505.2.
Fumigation shall be performed only under the direct and personal supervision of an individual
who is licensed by the board as an operator or field representative in Branch 1 as set forth in
Section 8560.
Article 1. General Provisions. Section 8505.5 (a).
(a) Notice of the date and place of fumigation, and chemicals to be used, shall be given by
the fumigator to the fire department serving the area in which fumigation is to be
performed not less than two hours prior to the time fumigation begins. The fire
department shall not charge any fees for any service related to structural pest control
activities except for the costs of an emergency response necessitated by illegal or
negligent actions.
Article 1. General Provisions. Section 8505.5 (b).
(b) Notice of each fumigation to be performed shall be given to the commissioner in the
county in which the job is to be performed. The notice, which may be mailed or given by
telephone, at the option of the commissioner, shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the
time fumigation begins, unless the commissioner determines that less time is sufficient.
A fee shall not be assessed for processing this notice.
Article 1. General Provisions. Section 8506.1 (b).
(b) A registered company may secure structural pest control work, submit bids, or otherwise
contract for pest control work. A registered company may employ licensed field
representatives and licensed operators to identify infestations or infections, make
inspections, and represent the company in the securing of pest control work. A
registered company may hire or employ individuals who are not licensed under this
chapter to perform work on contracts covering Branch 1, 2, or 3, or any combination of
branches, only after an operator or field representative has fully completed the
negotiation or signing of the contract covering a given job.
Article 1. General Provisions. Section 8505.13.
A registered company shall maintain a log of each fumigation job performed by it in this state.
The log shall be in the form required by the regulations of the board and shall be preserved for
a period of at least three years, during which time it shall be available at all times during
business hours for inspection by the board and its authorized representatives.
Article 1. General Provisions Section. 8514 (e-g).
(e) A registered company shall not subcontract structural fumigation work, as permitted in
this section, without the written consent of the consumer. The consumer shall be
12

APPENDIX I (cont.). Cited Sections of the California Business and Professional Code, Division
3. Chapter 14. Structural Pest Control Operators.
informed in advance, in writing, of any proposed work which the registered company
intends to subcontract and of the consumer’s right to select another person or entity of
the consumer’s choosing to perform the work. The consumer may authorize the
subcontracting of the work as proposed or may contract directly with another registered
company licensed to perform the work. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to
eliminate any otherwise applicable licensure requirements, nor permit a licensed
contractor to perform any work beyond that authorized by Section 8556.
(f) Nothing contained in this section shall permit or authorize a registered company to
perform, attempt to perform, advertise or hold out to the public or to any person that it is
authorized, qualified, or registered to perform, pest control work in a branch, or by a
method, for which it is not registered, except that a Branch 2 or Branch 3 registered
company may advertise fumigation or any all encompassing treatment described in
paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 1991 of Title 16 of the California Code of
Regulations if the company complies with the requirements of this section.
(g) Subcontracting of work, as permitted in this section, shall not relieve the prime
contractor or the subcontractor from responsibility for, or from disciplinary action
because of, an act or omission on its part, which would otherwise be a ground for
disciplinary action. However, the registered company making the initial proposal including
proposed work that the registered company intends to subcontract shall not be subject to
disciplinary action or otherwise responsible for an act or omission in the performance of
the work that the consumer directly contracts with another registered company, person,
or entity to perform, as permitted by this section. All home solicitation contracts shall
comply with Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1688) of Title 5 of Part 2 of Division 3 of
the Civil Code.
Article 4. Issuance of Licenses. Section 8560 (b).
(b) For the purpose of delimiting the type and character of work authorized by the various
branch licenses, the practice of pest control is classified into the following branches:
(1) Branch 1. Fumigation. The practice relating to the control of household and wooddestroying pests or organisms by fumigation with poisonous or lethal gases.
(2) Branch 2. General pest. The practice relating to the control of household pests, excluding
fumigation with poisonous or lethal gases.
(3) Branch 3. Termite. The practice relating to the control of wood-destroying pests or
organisms by the use of insecticides, or structural repairs and corrections, excluding
fumigation with poisonous or lethal gases.

APPENDIX I (cont.). Cited Sections of the California Business and Professional Code, Division
3. Chapter 14. Structural Pest Control Operators.
Article 4. Issuance of Licenses. Section 8562.
(a) To obtain an original operator’s license, an applicant shall submit to the registrar an
application containing the statement that the applicant desires the issuance of an
operator’s license under the terms of this chapter.
(b) The application shall be made on forms prescribed by the board and issued by the registrar
in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the board, and shall contain the
following:
(1) The name of the applicant.
(2) Proof satisfactory to the board that the applicant has had actual experience for a
period of not less than the time specified opposite the branches of pest control listed
below in the employ of a registered company in the State of California in the particular
branch or branches of pest control for which the applicant desires to be licensed, or
the equivalent of that experience:
Branch 1 ........................ 2 years
Branch 2 ........................ 2 years
Branch 3 ........................ 4 years
(c) For the purpose of this subdivision one year shall equal 1,600 hours of actual experience
in the field.
(d) A designation of the branch or branches for which the application is made.
(e) The fees prescribed by this chapter.
(f) No operator’s license shall be issued to an individual under 18 years of age.
(g) Effective January 1, 1993, an operator’s license shall not be issued to an individual unless
that individual has been licensed as a field representative in the branch in which the
individual has applied for an operator’s license for a period of at least one year, in the
case of Branches 1 and 2, or for a period of at least two years for Branch 3, or has
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the board that he or she has the equivalent of that
training and experience.
Article 4. Issuance of Licenses. Section 8563.
Any individual 18 years of age or over may apply for a license as field representative.
The applicant shall possess the qualifications and be examined as hereinafter prescribed. The
applicant shall apply to the board for the issuance of a field representative’s license within one
year from the date the applicant passes the examination.
14

APPENDIX I (cont.). Cited Sections of the California Business and Professional Code, Division
3. Chapter 14. Structural Pest Control Operators.
Article 4. Issuance of Licenses. Section 8564 (c).
(c) The board shall not accept any application for a field representative’s license in Branch 1
unless the applicant submits proof satisfactory to the board that he or she has had six
months’ training and experience in the practice of fumigating with poisonous or lethal
gases under the immediate supervision of an individual licensed to practice fumigating,
or the equivalent of that training and experience.
Article 4. Issuance of Licenses. Section 8565.
The board shall ascertain by examination that an applicant for a license as operator is qualified
in the use and understanding of all of the following:
(a) The English language, including reading and writing.
(b) The building and safety laws of the state and any of its political subdivisions, if the branch
or branches of pest control for which he or she is applying, require that knowledge.
(c) The labor laws of the state.
(d)The provisions of this chapter.
(e)Pesticides used in pest control, if the branch license or licenses for which he or she is
applying, require that knowledge.
(f) The theory and practice of the branch or branches of pest control in which the applicant
desires to be licensed.
(g) Other state laws, safety or health measures, or practices that are reasonably within the
scope of structural pest control in the various branches, including an applicant’s
knowledge of the requirements regarding health effects and restrictions on applications,
as set forth in Section 8538.
Article 4. Issuance of Licenses Section. 8565.5 (a).
(a) An applicant for a Branch 1 operator’s license shall demonstrate to the board that he or
she has passed satisfactorily board-approved courses in the following areas:
(1) Pesticides.
(2) Pest identification and biology.
(3) Contract law.
(4) Rules and regulations.
(5) Business practices.
(6) Fumigation safety.
15

APPENDIX I (cont.). Cited Sections of the California Business and Professional Code, Division
3. Chapter 14. Structural Pest Control Operators.
Article 4. Issuance of Licenses. Section 8566.
The board shall ascertain by examination that an applicant for a license as field representative is
qualified in the use and understanding of the following:
(a) The safety laws of the state, if the branch or branches of pest control for which he or she
is applying, require that knowledge.
(b) The provisions of this chapter.
(c) Pesticides used in pest control, if the branch or branches of pest control for which he or
she is applying, require that knowledge.
(d) The theory and practice of pest control in the branch or branches thereof for which the
applicant desires to be licensed.
(e) Other state laws, safety or health measures, or practices as are reasonably within the
scope of structural pest control in the various branches.
Article 5. Renewal of License. Section 8593.2.
Commencing July 1, 2016, a licensee shall comply with the training requirements of the Healthy
Schools Act of 2000 (Article 4 (commencing with Section 17608) of Chapter 5 of Part 10.5 of
Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code and Article 17 (commencing with Section 13180) of
Chapter 2 of Division 7 of the Food and Agricultural Code) if the licensee intends to apply a
pesticide at a school site, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 17609 of the Education Code.
Courses completed in furtherance of the training requirements of the Healthy Schools Act of
2000 shall count toward the continuing education requirements of the board and shall qualify
as continuing education in integrated pest management.
Article 6. Enforcement. Section 8616.5 (a).
The county agricultural commissioner shall be the lead agency for inspections and routine
investigations of pesticide use by the board licensees and registered companies, and of persons
engaged in unlicensed structural pest control. When a matter is referred to the board for
action, the board shall be the lead agency and may require that the commissioner assist in any
investigation.
Article 6. Enforcement. Section 8616.5 (a).
The board and the Director of Pesticide Regulation shall jointly develop the list of the types of
investigations to be conducted by the commissioner that may result in the suspension of a
license or company registration, or the imposition of a fine, pursuant to Section 8617 and the
list of the types of violations that the commissioner shall refer to the board for disciplinary
action.
16

APPENDIX II. Application for SPC Field Representative Exam, Form 43E-6 (Rev. 07/20).

APPENDIX II (cont.). Application for SPC Field Representative Exam, 43E-6 (Rev. 07/20).

APPENDIX II (cont.). Application for SPC Field Representative Exam, Form 43E-6 (Rev. 07/20).

APPENDIX III. SPC Application for Field Representative License, Form 43L-14 (Rev. 7/20).

APPENDIX III. (cont.). SPC Application for Field Representative License, Form 43L-14 (Rev.
7/20).

APPENDIX III. (cont.). SPC Application for Field Representative Examination, Form 43L-14
(Rev. 7/20).

APPENDIX IV. SPC Certificate of Training/Experience for Field Representative License
Application, Form 43-E 35 (Rev 5/15).

APPENDIX V. SPC Certificate of Training/Experience for Operators License Application, Form
43-E 3 (Rev 5/15).

APPENDIX VI. Application for SPC Operator Exam, Form 43E-1 (Rev. 07/20).

APPENDIX VI (cont.). Application for SPC Operator Exam, Form 43E-1 (Rev. 07/20).

APPENDIX VII. SPC Application for Operator License, Form 43L-1 (Rev. 7/20).

APPENDIX VII (cont.). SPC Application for Operator License, Form 43L-1 (Rev. 7/20).

APPENDIX VIII. California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Section 6724: Handler Training.
The employer shall assure that employees who handle pesticides have been trained pursuant to
the requirements of this section and that all other provisions of this section have been
complied with for employees who handle pesticides.
(a) The employer shall have a written training program. The training program shall describe the
materials (e.g., study guides, pamphlets, pesticide product labeling, Pesticide Safety
Information Series leaflets, Safety Data Sheets, slides, video) and information that will be
provided and used to train his or her employees and identify the person or firm that will
provide the training. The training program shall address each of the subjects specified in
subsection (b) that is applicable to the specific pesticide handling situation. The employer
shall maintain a copy of the training program while in use and for two years after use, at a
central location at the workplace.
(b) The training shall cover, for each pesticide or chemically similar group of pesticides, to be
used:
(1) Format and meaning of information, such as precautionary statements about human
health hazards, contained in pesticide product labeling;
(2) Applicator's responsibility to protect persons, animals, and property while applying
pesticides; and not to apply pesticides in a manner that results in contact with
persons not involved in the application process;
(3) Need for, limitations, appropriate use, removal, and sanitation, of, any required
personal protective equipment;
(4) Safety requirements and procedures, including engineering controls (such as closed
mixing systems and enclosed cabs) for handling, transporting, storing, disposing of
pesticides, and spill clean-up;
(5) Where and in what forms pesticides may be encountered, including treated surfaces,
residues on clothing, personal protective equipment, application equipment, and
drift;
(6) Hazards of pesticides, including acute, chronic, and delayed effects, and sensitization
effects, as identified in pesticide product labeling, Safety Data Sheets, or Pesticide
Safety Information Series leaflets;
(7) Routes by which pesticides can enter the body;
(8) Signs and symptoms of overexposure;
(9) Routine decontamination procedures when handling pesticides, including that
employees should:
(A) Wash hands before eating, drinking, using the toilet, chewing gum, or using
tobacco;
(B) Thoroughly wash or shower with soap and water;
(C) Change into clean clothes as soon as possible; and
31

APPENDIX VIII (cont.). California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Section 6724: Handler Training.
(D) Wash work clothes separately from other laundry before wearing them
again.
(10) How Safety Data Sheets provide hazard, emergency medical treatment, and other
information about the pesticides with which employees may come in contact;
(11) The hazard communication program requirements of section 6723;
(12) The purposes and requirements for medical supervision if organophosphate or
carbamate pesticides with the signal word "DANGER" or "WARNING" on the
labeling are mixed, loaded, or applied for the commercial or research production of
an agricultural plant commodity;
(13) First aid and emergency decontamination procedures and emergency eye flushing
techniques; and if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the body to wash
immediately with decontamination supplies and as soon as possible, wash or
shower with soap and water and change into clean clothes;
(14) How and when to obtain emergency medical care;
(15) Prevention, recognition, and first aid for heat-related illness in accordance with
Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, section 3395;
(16) Requirements of this chapter and chapter 4 relating to pesticide safety, Safety Data
Sheets, and Pesticide Safety Information Series leaflets;
(17) The requirement that handlers of pesticides used in the commercial or research
production of an agricultural commodity must be at least 18 years of age;
(18) Environmental concerns such as drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards;
(19) Field posting requirements and restricted entry intervals when pesticides are
applied for the commercial or research production of an agricultural commodity;
(20) That employees should not take pesticides or pesticide containers home from work;
(21) Potential hazards to children and pregnant women from pesticide exposures,
including that:
(A) Children and nonworking family members should keep away from treated
areas;
(B) After performing handling activities or after working in a treated area,
employees should remove boots or shoes before entering the home and
remove work clothes; and
(C) Employees should wash or shower before physical contact with children or
family members.
(22) How to report suspected pesticide use violations; and
(23) The employee's rights, including the right:
(A) To personally receive information about pesticides to which he or she may be
exposed;
APPENDIX VIII (cont.). California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Section 6724: Handler Training.
32

(B) For his or her physician or an employee representative designated in writing
to receive information about pesticides to which he or she may be exposed;
(C) To be protected against retaliatory action due to the exercise of any of his or
her rights; and
(D) To report suspected use violations to the Department or county agricultural
commissioner.
(c) The training shall be in a manner the employee can understand, be conducted pursuant to
the written training program, and include response to questions. Training for employees
handling pesticides used for the commercial or research production of an agricultural
commodity must be at a location reasonably free from distraction and trainers must be
present throughout the entire presentation.
(d) Training shall be completed before the employee is allowed to handle pesticides, continually
updated to cover any new pesticides that will be handled, and repeated at least annually
thereafter. Initial training may be waived if the employee submits a record showing that
training meeting the requirements of this section and covering the pesticides and use
situations applicable to the new employment situation was received within the last year. A
certified applicator is considered trained for the purposes of this section.
(e) The date and extent of initial and annually required training given to the employee and the
job to be assigned shall be recorded. This record shall be verified by the employee's
signature and retained by the employer for two years at a central location at the workplace
accessible to employees. For an employee handling pesticides used for the commercial or
research production of an agricultural commodity, the record must also include employee's
printed name; the title(s) and source(s) of the training materials used; employer's name;
and trainer's name and qualifications as specified in (f).
(f) The person conducting the training for employees who will be handling pesticides for the
commercial or research production of an agricultural plant commodity shall be qualified as
one of the following:
(1) A California certified commercial applicator;
(2) A California certified private applicator;
(3) A person holding a valid County Biologist License in Pesticide Regulation or
Investigation and Environmental Monitoring issued by the Department of Food and
Agriculture;
(4) A University of California Extension Advisor;
(5) A person who has completed an "instructor training" program presented by one of
the following:
APPENDIX VIII (cont.). California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Section 6724: Handler Training.
(A) the University of California, Integrated Pest Management Program; or
33

(B) other instructor training program approved by the Director;
(6) A California licensed Agricultural Pest Control Adviser;
(7) A California Registered Professional Forester; or
(8) Other trainer qualification approved by the Director.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 12981, Food and Agricultural Code. Reference: Sections 12980
and 12981, Food and Agricultural Code.

APPENDIX IX. California Code of Regulations. Title 3, Section 6739: Respiratory Protection.
(a) General Requirements.
(1) The employer shall assure that:
(A) Employees use approved respiratory equipment in compliance with this regulation when
handling pesticides where respirators are required by label, restricted material permit
condition, or regulation.
(2) In any workplace where respirators are required by label, restricted material permit
condition, regulation, or employer, the employer shall establish a written respiratory
protection program with work site-specific procedures. The program shall be updated as
necessary to reflect those changes in workplace conditions that affect respirator use. The
employer shall include in the program the following provisions, as applicable:
(A) Procedures for selecting respirators for use in the workplace;
(B) Medical evaluations of employees required to use respirators;
(C) Fit testing procedures for tight-fitting respirators;
(D) Procedures for proper use of respirators in routine and reasonably foreseeable
emergency situations;
(E) Procedures and schedules for cleaning, disinfecting, storing, inspecting, repairing,
discarding, and otherwise maintaining respirators;
(F) Procedures to ensure adequate air quality, quantity, and flow of breathing air for
atmosphere-supplying respirators;
(G) Training of employees in the respiratory hazards to which they are potentially exposed
during routine and emergency situations, including Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health
(IDLH) atmospheres, if appropriate;
(H) Training of employees in the proper use of respirators, including putting on and
removing them, any limitations on their use, and their maintenance; and
(I) Procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of the program pursuant to subsections (n)(1)
and (2).
1. The respirator program administrator shall administer the respiratory protection
program in compliance with this section.
2. The employer shall provide respirators, training, and medical evaluations at no cost to
the employee.
(b) Voluntary Respirator Provision.
(1) An employer may provide respirators at the request of employees or permit employees to
use their own respirators for use on a voluntary basis, if the employer determines that such
respirator use will not in itself create a hazard.
(2) If the employer determines that any voluntary respirator use is permissible, the employer
shall provide the respirator users with the information contained in subsection (r) and display
this information alongside the display of either the Hazard Communication Information for
Employees Handling Pesticides in Agricultural Settings (Pesticide Safety Information Series
35

APPENDIX IX (cont.). California Code of Regulations. Title 3, Section 6739: Respiratory
Protection.
leaflet A-8), or Hazard Communication Information for Employees Handling Pesticides in
Noncrop Settings (Pesticide Safety Information Series leaflet N-8), at a central location in the
workplace.
(3) Under the employer-supplied voluntary respirator provision, the employer shall establish
and implement the provisions of a written respiratory protection program necessary to
ensure that any employee using a respirator voluntarily is medically able to use that
respirator, and that the respirator is cleaned, stored, and maintained so that its use does not
present a health hazard to the user. Employers are not required to include a written
respiratory protection program for those employees whose only use of respirators involves
the voluntary use of filtering facepieces.
(A) The employer shall provide respirators, training, and medical evaluations at no cost to
the employee.
(c) Selection of Respirators. The employer shall select and provide an appropriate respirator
certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) based on the
respiratory hazard(s) and relevant workplace and user factors to which the worker is exposed;
and the appropriate pesticide label, restricted materials permit condition, regulation, or
employer requirements, whichever is most protective.
(1) The employer shall select respirators from a sufficient number of respirator models and
sizes so that the respirator is acceptable to, and correctly fits, the user.
(2) Fumigant-confining structures shall be considered IDLH atmosphere unless proven not to
be by appropriate measuring devices as to that chemical. The employer shall provide the
following respirators for employee use in IDLH atmospheres:
(A) A full facepiece pressure demand self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) certified by
NIOSH for a minimum service life of thirty minutes, or
(B) A combination full facepiece pressure demand supplied-air respirator (SAR) with
auxiliary self-contained air supply.
(C) Respirators provided only for escape from IDLH atmospheres shall be NIOSH-certified for
escape from the atmosphere in which they will be used.
(d) Medical Evaluation. The employer shall ensure a medical evaluation is conducted to
determine the employee's ability to use a respirator before the employee is fit tested or
required to use the respirator in the workplace. The employer may discontinue an employee's
medical evaluations when the employee is no longer required to use a respirator.
(1) Medical Evaluation Procedures.
(A) The employer shall identify a physician or other licensed health care professional
(PLHCP) to perform medical evaluations using the medical questionnaire in subsection (q) or
an equivalent form or an initial medical examination that obtains the same information as
the medical questionnaire.
36

APPENDIX IX (cont.). California Code of Regulations. Title 3, Section 6739: Respiratory
Protection.
(B) The medical evaluation shall obtain the information requested by the questionnaire in
subsection (q), sections 1 and 2.
(2) Follow-up Medical Examination.
(A) The employer shall ensure that a follow-up medical examination is provided when a
PLHCP determines that there is a need for a follow-up medical examination.
(B) The follow-up medical examination shall include any medical tests, consultations, or
diagnostic procedures that the PLHCP deems necessary to make a final determination.
(3) Administration of the Medical Questionnaire and Examinations.
(A) The medical questionnaire and examinations shall be administered confidentially during
the employee's normal working hours or at a time and place convenient to the employee.
The medical questionnaire shall be administered in a manner that ensures that the
employee understands its content.
(B) The employer shall provide the employee with an opportunity to discuss the
questionnaire and examination results with the PLHCP.
(4) Supplemental Information for the PLHCP.
(A) The employer shall provide the following information to the PLHCP before the PLHCP
makes a recommendation concerning an employee's ability to use a respirator:
1. The type and weight of the respirator to be used by the employee;
2. The duration and frequency of respirator use (including use for rescue and escape);
3. The expected physical work effort;
4. Additional protective clothing and equipment to be worn; and
5. Temperature and humidity extremes that may be encountered.
(B) The employer shall not be required to provide any supplemental information provided
previously to the PLHCP regarding an employee for a subsequent medical evaluation if the
information and the PLHCP remain the same. When the employer replaces a PLHCP, the
employer shall ensure that the new PLHCP obtains the information specified in (4)(A)1-5 by
having the documents transferred from the former PLHCP to the new PLHCP. Employers are
not required to have employees medically reevaluated solely because a new PLHCP has
been selected.
(C) The employer shall provide the PLHCP with a copy of the written respiratory protection
program and a copy of this section.
(5) Medical Determination.
(A) The employer shall obtain a written medical recommendation from the PLHCP regarding
the employee's ability to use the respirator. The written medical recommendation shall be
provided on the form in subsection (s) or provide substantially the same information as
follows:

APPENDIX IX (cont.). California Code of Regulations. Title 3, Section 6739: Respiratory
Protection.
1. Any limitations on respirator use related to the medical condition of the employee, or
relating to the workplace conditions in which the respirator will be used, including
whether or not the employee is medically able to use the respirator;
2. The need, if any, for follow-up medical evaluations; and
3. A statement that the PLHCP has provided the employee with a copy of the PLHCP's
written medical recommendation.
(B) If a negative pressure respirator is to be used and the PLHCP finds a medical condition
that may place the employee's health at increased risk, the employer shall either provide a
powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) provided the PLHCP's medical evaluation finds that
the employee can use such a respirator or make changes in the workplace such that
respiratory protection is not required. If a subsequent medical evaluation finds that the
employee is medically able to use a negative pressure respirator, then the employer shall no
longer be required to provide a PAPR.
(6) Additional Medical Evaluations. The employer shall provide additional medical evaluations
that comply with the requirements of this section if:
(A) An employee reports medical signs or symptoms that are related to their ability to use
a respirator;
(B) A PLHCP, supervisor, or the respirator program administrator informs the employer
that an employee needs to be reevaluated;
(C) Information from the respiratory protection program administrator, including
observations made during fit testing and program evaluation, indicates a need for
employee reevaluation; or
(D) A change occurs in workplace conditions including, but not limited to, physical work
effort, protective clothing, or temperature, that may result in a substantial increase in the
physiological burden placed on an employee.
(e) Fit Testing. The employer shall assure that employees using a tight-fitting facepiece
respirator pass an appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT).
(1) The employer shall ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator is fit
tested before initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size,
style, model or make) is used, and at least annually thereafter.
(2) The employer shall conduct an additional fit test whenever the employee reports, or the
employer, PLHCP, supervisor, or respirator program administrator makes visual observations
of changes in the employee's physical condition that could affect respirator fit. Such
conditions include, but are not limited to, facial scarring, dental changes, cosmetic surgery, or
an obvious change in body weight.
(3) If after passing a QLFT or QNFT, the employee subsequently notifies the employer, PLHCP,
supervisor, or respirator program administrator that the fit of the respirator is unacceptable,
38

APPENDIX IX (cont.). California Code of Regulations. Title 3, Section 6739: Respiratory
Protection.
the employee shall be given a reasonable opportunity to select a different respirator
facepiece and to be retested.
(4) The fit test shall be administered using either the Cal/OSHA-accepted QLFT or QNFT
protocols (Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 5144, Appendix A), or as
recommended by the manufacturer of the respirator, if such recommendations are in
accordance with Title 8 CCR section 5144, Appendix A, Part II. QLFT is acceptable for all
negative-pressure tight-fitting half or full facepiece respirators used in the application of
pesticides.
(5) If the fit factor, as determined through a Cal/OSHA-accepted QNFT protocol (Title 8,
California Code of Regulations, section 5144, Appendix A), is equal to or greater than 100 for
tight-fitting half facepieces, or equal to or greater than 500 for tight-fitting full facepieces, the
QNFT has been passed with that respirator.
(6) Fit testing of tight-fitting atmosphere-supplying respirators and tight-fitting powered airpurifying respirators shall be accomplished by performing quantitative or qualitative fit
testing in the negative pressure mode, regardless of the mode of operation (negative or
positive pressure) that is used for respiratory protection.
(A) Qualitative fit testing of these respirators shall be accomplished by temporarily
converting the respirator user's actual facepiece into a negative pressure respirator with
appropriate filters, or by using an identical negative pressure air-purifying respirator
facepiece with the same sealing surfaces as a surrogate for the atmosphere-supplying or
powered air-purifying respirator facepiece.
(B) Quantitative fit testing of these respirators shall be accomplished by modifying the
facepiece to allow sampling inside the facepiece in the breathing zone of the user, midway
between the nose and mouth. This requirement shall be accomplished by installing a
permanent sampling probe onto a surrogate facepiece, or by using a sampling adapter
designed to temporarily provide a means of sampling air from inside the facepiece.
(C) Any modifications to the respirator facepiece for fit testing shall be completely removed,
and the facepiece restored to NIOSH-approved configuration, before that facepiece can be
used in the workplace.
(f) Facepiece Seal Protection. A respirator that requires a tight face-to-facepiece seal shall not
have any interference with the establishment of this seal. The employer shall ensure that:
(1) Employees shall not wear a respirator with a tight-fitting facepiece if:
(A) Facial hair comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or interferes
with valve function; or
(B) Any physical or mental condition interferes with the face-to-facepiece seal or valve
function.
(2) Corrective glasses or goggles or other personal protective equipment worn by an
employee do not interfere with the face-to-facepiece seal.
39

APPENDIX IX (cont.). California Code of Regulations. Title 3, Section 6739: Respiratory
Protection.
(3) Employees perform a user seal check each time they put on the respirator using the
Cal/OSHA procedures (Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 5144, Appendix B-1) or
procedures recommended by the respirator manufacturer that the employer demonstrates
are as effective as those in the Cal/OSHA procedures when using tight-fitting respirators.
(4) Appropriate surveillance shall be maintained of work area conditions and degree of
employee exposure or stress. When there is a change in work area conditions or degree of
employee exposure or stress that may affect respirator effectiveness, the employer shall
reevaluate the continued effectiveness of the respirator.
(5) Employees shall leave the contaminated area:
(A) To wash their faces and respirator facepieces as necessary to prevent eye or skin
irritation associated with respirator use;
(B) If they detect vapor or gas breakthrough, changes in breathing resistance, or leakage of
the facepiece; or
(C) To replace or adjust the respirator or the filter, cartridge, or canister elements.
(6) If the employee detects vapor or gas breakthrough, changes in breathing resistance, or
leakage of the facepiece, the employer shall replace or repair the respirator before allowing
the employee to return to the work area.
(g) Procedures for Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) Atmospheres. Fumigantconfining structures shall be considered IDLH atmosphere unless proven not to be by
appropriate measuring devices. For all IDLH atmospheres, the employer shall assure that:
(1) One employee, or when needed pursuant to (2), more than one employee is located
outside the IDLH atmosphere;
(2) Visual, voice, or signal line communication is maintained between the employee(s) in the
IDLH atmosphere and the employee(s) located outside the IDLH atmosphere;
(3) The employee(s) located outside the IDLH atmosphere is trained and equipped to provide
effective emergency rescue;
(4) The employee(s) located outside the IDLH atmosphere notifies the employer or designee,
and/or calls 9-1-1 before entering the IDLH atmosphere to provide emergency rescue. Once
notified, the employer or designee authorized to do so by the employer, shall provide
necessary assistance appropriate to the situation; and
(5) Employee(s) located outside the IDLH atmospheres is equipped with:
(A) Pressure demand or other positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA),
or a pressure demand or other positive pressure supplied-air respirator with auxiliary SCBA;
and if necessary,
(B) Appropriate retrieval equipment for removing the employee(s) who enter(s) these
hazardous atmospheres where retrieval equipment would contribute to the rescue of the
employee(s) and would not increase the overall risk resulting from entry.
40

APPENDIX IX (cont.). California Code of Regulations. Title 3, Section 6739: Respiratory
Protection.
(h) Cleaning and Disinfecting. The employer shall provide each respirator user with a respirator
that is clean, sanitary, and in good working order. The employer shall ensure that respirators
are cleaned and disinfected using the procedures recommended by the respirator
manufacturer. If the manufacturer requires a cleaning agent that does not contain a
disinfectant, the respirator components shall be disinfected with a registered disinfectant
approved for such use. The employer shall assure that:
(1) Respirators issued for the exclusive use of an employee shall be cleaned and disinfected as
often as necessary to be maintained in a sanitary condition.
(2) Respirators maintained for emergency use shall be cleaned and disinfected after each use.
(3) Respirators that are collected and reissued for use of any employee shall be cleaned and
disinfected before reissued.
(4) Respirators are stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight,
extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals. Respirators shall be
packed or stored to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve.
(i) Storage of Emergency Respirators. Emergency respirators shall be:
(1) Stored immediately accessible to the work area.
(2) Stored in compartments or in covers that are clearly marked as containing emergency
respirators.
(3) Stored in accordance with any applicable manufacturer instructions.
(4) Stored in such a location as to be safely accessible for use if conditions develop requiring
utilization of emergency respiratory protection.
(j) Inspection and Repair.
(1) The employer shall ensure that all respirators are inspected before each use and during
cleaning, and that:
(A) Routine-use respirator inspections include the following:
1. A check of respirator function, tightness of connections, and the condition of the
various parts including, but not limited to, the facepiece, head straps, valves, connecting
tube, and cartridges, canisters or filters;
2. A check of elastomeric parts for pliability and signs of deterioration; and
3. SCBA air cylinders are checked to ensure that at least one routine use SCBA air cylinder
is charged to 80 percent of the manufacturer's recommended pressure level at the
beginning of the workday.
(B) Emergency-use or second respirators are checked to ensure that the air cylinders are
maintained at 100 percent of manufacturer's recommended capacity just prior to each use
of a pesticide requiring their presence.

APPENDIX IX (cont.). California Code of Regulations. Title 3, Section 6739: Respiratory
Protection.
(C) Emergency-use respirators are also inspected at least monthly according to the routineuse inspection criteria, manufacturer's recommendations, and include performance of the
following:
1. A check for proper function;
2. A certification that documents the date the inspection was performed, the name (or
signature) of the person who made the inspection, the findings, required remedial action,
and a serial number or other means of identifying the inspected respirator; and that this
information is included on a tag or label that is attached to the storage compartment for
the respirator or is kept with the respirator. This information shall be maintained until
replaced following a subsequent certification; and
3. A check for properly functioning SCBA regulator and warning devices.
(D) Escape-only respirators must be inspected according to the routine-use inspection
criteria, and before being brought into the workplace for use.
(2) The employer shall ensure that respirators that fail an inspection or are otherwise found
to be defective shall be removed from service, and discarded, repaired, or adjusted in
accordance with the following procedures:
(A) Repairs or adjustments to respirators shall be made only by persons appropriately
trained to perform such operations and shall use only the respirator manufacturer's NIOSHapproved parts designed for the respirator;
(B) Repairs shall be made according to the manufacturer's recommendations and
specifications for the type and extent of repairs to be performed; and
(C) Reducing and admission valves, regulators, and alarms shall be adjusted or repaired only
by the manufacturer or a technician trained by the manufacturer.
(k) Breathing Air Quality and Use. The employer shall ensure:
(1) Compressed breathing air suppliers meet at least the requirements for Grade D breathing
air described by the Compressed Gas Association (CGA) Commodity Specification for Air, G7.1-1997 and certify such with a Certificate of Analysis (original or copy) from the supplier.
(2) Cylinders shall be tested and maintained as prescribed in the Shipping Container
Specification Regulations of the Department of Transportation (49 Code of Federal Regulation
part 173 and part 178).
(3) Compressors used to supply breathing air to respirators are constructed and situated so as
to conform to Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 5144.
(l) Identification of Filters, Cartridges, and Canisters. The employer shall ensure that all filters,
cartridges and canisters used in the workplace are labeled and color-coded with the NIOSH
approval label. The label shall remain legible and not be removed.
(m) Training and Information. In addition to the training requirements specified in section 6724,
the employer shall ensure that:
42

APPENDIX IX (cont.). California Code of Regulations. Title 3, Section 6739: Respiratory
Protection.
(1) Each employee can demonstrate knowledge of at least the following:
(A) Why the respirator is necessary and how improper fit, usage, or maintenance can
compromise the protective effect of the respirator;
(B) What the limitations and capabilities of the respirator are;
(C) How to use the respirator effectively in emergency situations, including situations in
which the respirator malfunctions;
(D) How to inspect, put on and remove, use, and check the seals of the respirator;
(E) What the procedures are for maintenance and storage of the respirator;
(F) How to recognize medical signs and symptoms that may limit or prevent the effective
use of respirators; and
(G) The general requirements of this section.
(2) Training shall be conducted in a manner that is understandable to the employee.
(3) Training is provided prior to requiring the employee to use a respirator in the workplace.
(4) A new employee who has received training within the last 12 months that addresses the
elements specified in subsection (m)(1)(A) through (G) is not required to repeat such training
provided that, as required by subsection (m)(1), the employee can demonstrate knowledge of
those element(s). Previous training not repeated initially by the employer must be provided
no later than 12 months from the date of the previous training.
(5) Retraining shall be administered annually, and when the following situations occur:
(A) Changes in the workplace or the type of respirator render previous training obsolete;
(B) Inadequacies in the employee's knowledge or use of the respirator indicate that the
employee has not retained the requisite understanding or skill; or
(C) Any other situation arises in which retraining appears necessary to ensure safe
respirator use.
(6) The basic advisory information on respirators specified in (r) is provided in any written or
oral format to employees who wear respirators when such use is not required by label,
restricted materials permit condition, regulation, or by the employer.
(n) Program Evaluation.
(1) The employer shall conduct evaluations of the workplace as necessary to ensure that the
provisions of the current written program are being effectively implemented and that it
continues to be effective as required by this section.
(2) The employer shall annually consult employees required to use respirators to assess the
employees' views on program effectiveness and to identify any problems. Any problems that
are identified during this assessment shall be corrected. Factors to be assessed include, but
are not limited to:
(A) Respirator fit (including the ability to use the respirator without interfering with
effective workplace performance);
43

APPENDIX IX (cont.). California Code of Regulations. Title 3, Section 6739: Respiratory
Protection.
(B) Appropriate respirator selection for the pesticides to which the employee is exposed;
(C) Proper respirator use under the workplace conditions the employee encounters; and
(D) Proper respirator maintenance.
(3) A written record of these evaluations and consultations shall be documented and at least
contain:
(A) Name of workers consulted.
(B) Date of evaluation/consultation.
(C) Description of any finding from the evaluation or consultation requiring modification of
written respiratory protection program or a declaration of no findings.
(4) Any findings from either the employer evaluation or the employee consultation that
necessitate the modification to the written respiratory protection program shall be
implemented within 30 days from the date of the evaluation/consultation.
(o) End-of-Service Life. When air-purifying respirators are required for protection against
pesticides, the employer shall ensure that air-purifying elements (or entire respirator, if
disposable type) shall be replaced according to the following hierarchically arranged criteria:
(1) At the first indication of odor, taste, or irritation while in use, the respirator wearer leaves
the contaminated area, adjusts the mask for fit and on returning still encounters odor, taste,
or irritation. This criterion item supersedes any of the criteria listed in (2)-(6).
(2) When any End-of-Service-Life-Indicator (ESLI) indicates that the respirator has reached its
end of service;
(3) All disposable filtering facepiece respirators shall be discarded at the end of the workday;
(4) According to pesticide-specific label directions/recommendations;
(5) According to pesticide-specific directions from the respirator manufacturer;
(6) Absent any pesticide-specific directions/recommendations, at the end of the day's work
period;
(p) Recordkeeping. The employer shall retain written information regarding medical
recommendations, fit testing, and the respirator program.
(1) Records required by this section shall be maintained while the employee is required to use
respiratory protection and for three years after the end of employment conditions requiring
respiratory protection and shall be available for inspection by the employee, the Director, or
commissioner.
(2) Fit testing.
(A) The employer shall establish a record of the qualitative and quantitative fit tests
administered to an employee including:
1. The name or identification of the employee tested;
2. Type of fit test performed;
3. Specific make, model, style, and size of respirator tested;
44

APPENDIX IX (cont.). California Code of Regulations. Title 3, Section 6739: Respiratory
Protection.
4. Date of test; and
5. The pass/fail results for qualitative fit testing or the fit factor and strip chart recording
or other recording of the test results for QNFTs.
(3) A written copy of the current respirator program shall be retained by the employer.
Previous versions of the written respirator protection program shall be retained for three
years.
(4) Written information required to be retained under this subsection shall be made available
upon request to employees falling under the respiratory protection program and to the
commissioner or persons designated by the Director for review and copying.
(q) Medical Evaluation Questionnaire. The completion of this form, or a form that obtains the
same information as the medical questionnaire, by each respirator wearing employee; and the
review of the completed form by a physician or licensed health care provider, is mandatory for
all employees whose work activities require the wearing of respiratory protection.
The medical evaluation questionnaire shall be administered in a manner that ensures that the
employee understands the document and its content. The person administering the
questionnaire shall offer to read or explain any part of the questionnaire to the employee in a
language and manner the employee understands. After giving the employee the questionnaire,
the person administering the questionnaire shall ask the following question of the employee:
“Can you read and complete this questionnaire?” If the answer is affirmative, the employee
shall be allowed to confidentially complete the questionnaire. If the answer is negative, the
employer must provide either a copy of the questionnaire in a language understood by the
employee or a confidential reader, in the primarily understood language of the employee.
(Please Note: The complete form is found in this regulation but is not presented here.)

APPENDIX X. Department of Transportation Requirement for Hazmat Employee Training (49
CFR § 172.700 HM-232).
(a) Hazmat employee training must include the following:
(1) General awareness/familiarization training. Each hazmat employee shall be provided
general awareness/familiarization training designed to provide familiarity with the
requirements of this subchapter, and to enable the employee to recognize and identify
hazardous materials consistent with the hazard communication standards of this subchapter.
(2) Function-specific training.
(i) Each hazmat employee must be provided function-specific training concerning
requirements of this subchapter, or exemptions or special permits issued under
subchapter A of this chapter, that are specifically applicable to the functions the employee
performs.
(ii) As an alternative to function-specific training on the requirements of this subchapter,
training relating to the requirements of the ICAO Technical Instructions and the IMDG
Code may be provided to the extent such training addresses functions authorized by
subpart C of part 171 of this subchapter.
(3) Safety training. Each hazmat employee shall receive safety training concerning (i) Emergency response information required by subpart G of part 172;
(ii) Measures to protect the employee from the hazards associated with hazardous
materials to which they may be exposed in the workplace, including specific measures the
hazmat employer has implemented to protect employees from exposure; and
(iii) Methods and procedures for avoiding accidents, such as the proper procedures for
handling packages containing hazardous materials.
(4) Security awareness training. Each hazmat employee must receive training that provides
an awareness of security risks associated with hazardous materials transportation and
methods designed to enhance transportation security. This training must also include a
component covering how to recognize and respond to possible security threats. New hazmat
employees must receive the security awareness training required by this paragraph within 90
days after employment.
(5) In-depth security training. Each hazmat employee of a person required to have a security
plan in accordance with subpart I of this part who handles hazardous materials covered by
the plan, performs a regulated function related to the hazardous materials covered by the
plan, or is responsible for implementing the plan must be trained concerning the security
plan and its implementation. Security training must include company security objectives,
organizational security structure, specific security procedures, specific security duties and
responsibilities for each employee, and specific actions to be taken by each employee in the
event of a security breach.
(b) OSHA, EPA, and other training. Training conducted by employers to comply with the hazard
communication programs required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the
Department of Labor (29 CFR 1910.120 or 1910.1200) or the Environmental Protection Agency
46

APPENDIX X (cont.). Department of Transportation Requirement for Hazmat Employee
Training (49 CFR § 172.700 HM-232).
(40 CFR 311.1), or training conducted by employers to comply with security training programs
required by other Federal or international agencies, may be used to satisfy the training
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section to the extent that such training addresses the
training components specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Initial and recurrent training (1) Initial training. A new hazmat employee, or a hazmat employee who changes job
functions may perform those functions prior to the completion of training provided (i) The employee performs those functions under the direct supervision of a properly
trained and knowledgeable hazmat employee; and
(ii) The training is completed within 90 days after employment or a change in job function.
(2) Recurrent training. A hazmat employee must receive the training required by this subpart
at least once every three years. For in-depth security training required under paragraph (a)(5)
of this section, a hazmat employee must be trained at least once every three years or, if the
security plan for which training is required is revised during the three-year recurrent training
cycle, within 90 days of implementation of the revised plan.
(3) Relevant Training. Relevant training received from a previous employer or other source
may be used to satisfy the requirements of this subpart provided a current record of training
is obtained from hazmat employees' previous employer.
(4) Compliance. Each hazmat employer is responsible for compliance with the requirements
of this subchapter regardless of whether the training required by this subpart has been
completed.
(d) Recordkeeping. Each hazmat employer must create and retain a record of current training
of each hazmat employee, inclusive of the preceding three years, in accordance with this
section for as long as that employee is employed by that employer as a hazmat employee and
for 90 days thereafter. A hazmat employer must make a hazmat employee's record of current
training available upon request, at a reasonable time and location, to an authorized official of
the Department of Transportation or of an entity explicitly granted authority to enforce the
HMR. The record must include:
(1) The hazmat employee's name;
(2) The most recent training completion date of the hazmat employee's training;
(3) A description, copy, or the location of the training materials used to meet the
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section;
(4) The name and address of the person providing the training; and
(5) Certification that the hazmat employee has been trained and tested, as required by this
subpart.

APPENDIX X (cont.). Department of Transportation Requirement for Hazmat Employee
Training (49 CFR § 172.700 HM-232).
(e) Limitations. The following limitations apply:
(1) A hazmat employee who repairs, modifies, reconditions, or tests packagings, as qualified
for use in the transportation of hazardous materials, and who does not perform any other
function subject to the requirements of this subchapter, is not subject to the training
requirement of paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(2) A railroad maintenance-of-way employee or railroad signalman, who does not perform
any function subject to the requirements of this subchapter, is not subject to the training
requirements of paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(4), or (a)(5) of this section.

APPENDIX XI. Cited Sections of California Code of Regulations. Title 16. Professional and
Vocational Regulations. Division 19 Structural Pest Control Board.
Article 3.5. Continuing Education. Section 1950. Continuing Education Requirements (a-d & g).
(a) Except as provided in section 1951, every licensee is required, as a condition to renewal
of a license, to certify that he or she has completed the continuing education
requirements set forth in this article. A licensee who cannot verify completion of
continuing education by producing certificates of activity completion, whenever
requested to do so by the Board, may be subject to disciplinary action under section
8641 of the code.
(b) Each licensee is required to complete a certain number of continuing education hours
during the three year renewal period. The number of hours required depends on the
number of branches of pest control in which licenses are held. The subject matter
covered by each activity shall be designated as “technical” or “general” by the Board
when the activity is approved. Hour values shall be assigned by the Board to each
approved educational activity, in accordance with the provisions of section 1950.5.
(c) Operators licensed in one branch of pest control shall complete 16 continuing education
hours during each three year renewal period. Operators licensed in two branches of pest
control shall complete 20 continuing education hours during each three year renewal
period. Operators licensed in three branches of pest control shall complete 24 continuing
education hours during each three year renewal period. In each case, a minimum of four
continuing education hours in a technical subject directly related to each branch of pest
control held by the licensee must be completed for each branch license, a minimum of
two hours in Integrated Pest Management as defined in section 1984 must be completed
by Branch 2 and/or 3 licensees renewing on or after June 30, 2010, and a minimum of
eight hours must be completed from Board approved courses on the Structural Pest
Control Act, the Rules and Regulations, or structural pest control related agencies' rules
and regulations.
(d) Field representatives licensed in one branch of pest control shall have completed 16
continuing education hours, field representatives licensed in two branches of pest
control shall have completed 20 continuing education hours, field representatives
licensed in three branches of pest control shall have completed 24 continuing education
hours during each three year renewal period. In each case, a minimum of four continuing
education hours in a technical subject directly related to each branch of pest control held
by the licensee must be completed for each branch of pest control licensed, a minimum
of two hours in Integrated Pest Management must be completed by Branch 2 and/or 3
licensees renewing on or after June 30, 2010, and a minimum of eight hours must be
completed from Board approved courses on the Structural Pest Control Act, the Rules
and Regulations, or structural pest control related agencies' rules and regulations.
49

APPENDIX XI (cont.). Cited Sections of California Code of Regulations. Title 16. Professional
and Vocational Regulations. Division 19 Structural Pest Control Board.
(g) Operators who hold a field representative's license in a branch of pest control in which
they do not hold an operator's license must complete four of the continuing education
hours required by section 1950(c) in a technical subject directly related to the branch or
branches of pest control in which the field representative's license is held, in order to
keep the field representative's license active.
Article 3.5. Continuing Education. Section 1950.5. Hour Value System.
The following hour values shall be assigned to the educational activities approved by the Board.
All educational activities must be submitted to the Board for approval before presentation for
continuing education credit, in accordance with section 1953. Each activity approved for
technical or rules and regulations continuing education hours must include a written
examination to be administered at the end of the course. Examinations administered at the end
of the course must consist of ten questions per one hour of instruction, with 40 questions
minimum for any activity of instruction of four hours or more. Licensees must obtain a passing
score of 70% or better in order to obtain a certificate of course completion. If the examination
is failed, the licensee shall be allowed to be reexamined by taking a different examination
within sixty days.
(a) Accredited college courses -10 hours for each 2 semester-unit course; 16 hours for each 3
semester-unit course.
(b) Adult education courses -6 hours
(c) Professional seminars or meetings -up to a maximum of 6 hours per seminar or meeting.
Additional hours may be approved depending on the complexity of the activity and its
relevance to new developments in the field of pest control.
(d)Technical seminars or meetings -up to a maximum of 6 hours per seminar or meeting.
Additional hours may be approved depending on the complexity of the activity and its
relevance to new developments in the field of pest control.
(e) Operators' courses approved by the Board pursuant to section 8565.5 of the code -1 hour
per hour of instruction.
(f) Correspondence courses developed by the Board pursuant to section 8565.5 of the code full credit per branch.
(g) Correspondence courses approved by the Board -hours will be assigned depending on the
complexity of the course and its relevance to new developments in the field of pest
control.
(h) Association meetings -1 hour for every hour of instruction up to a maximum of 4 hours
per meeting.
50

APPENDIX XI (cont.). Cited Sections of California Code of Regulations. Title 16. Professional
and Vocational Regulations. Division 19 Structural Pest Control Board.
(i) Structural Pest Control Board meetings -1 general hour and 1 rule and regulation hour per
meeting, up to a maximum of 4 hours per renewal period (excluding Board Members.)
This activity is exempt from examination requirements pursuant to this section.
(j) Structural Pest Control Board Committee meetings -1 hour per meeting, up to a maximum
of 2 hours per renewal period (excluding Board Members).
(k) In-house training in technical subjects -1 hour per hour of instruction.
(l) Board approved Rules and Regulations courses -1 hour for every hour of instruction.
(m) Integrated Pest Management courses -1 hour for every hour of instruction.
Article 4. Fumigation and Pesticide Use. Section 1970. Standards and Records Requirements
(a).
For the purpose of maintaining proper standards of safety and the establishment of
responsibility in handling the dangerous gases used in fumigation and the pesticides used in
other pest control operations, a registered company shall compile and retain for a period of at
least three years, a log for each fumigation job and for each pesticide control operation in
which a pesticide is used by the registered company or the registered company's employee. If
the fumigation is to be performed by a fumigation subcontractor, the subcontractor shall
complete the fumigation log and forward a copy of the log to the primary contractor within ten
business days.
(a) The log (See Form 43M-47 (Rev. 5/07) at the end of this section) for each fumigation job
shall contain the following information:
Name, address and company registration certificate number of prime contractor.
Name, address and company registration certificate number of subcontractor, if any.
Address of property.
Date of fumigation.
Name and address of owner or his or her agent.
Date and hour fire department was notified pursuant to Business and Professions Code
section 8505.5.
Date and hour county agricultural commissioner was notified and method of notification,
where required.
Property description including type of structure as to details of roofing, walls, and the
presence of construction elements, conduits, drains, air ducts, or vacuum systems that could
allow the passage of fumigant from the structure to be fumigated to any adjacent or

APPENDIX XI (cont.). Cited Sections of California Code of Regulations. Title 16. Professional
and Vocational Regulations. Division 19 Structural Pest Control Board.
adjoining structure(s), thereby connecting them, and method(s) used to prevent passage of
the fumigant.
Cubic feet fumigated.
Target pest(s).
Kind of fumigant(s) used.
United States Environmental Protection Agency registration number(s) of fumigant(s).
Name of warning agent and amount used.
Type of sealing method used.
Weather conditions as to temperature and wind.
Date and hour fumigant introduced.
Cylinder number of each fumigant used.
Weight of each fumigant cylinder before introduction of gas.
Pounds of fumigant used from each cylinder.
Total pounds of fumigant used.
List of any extraordinary safety precautions taken.
Name, signature and license number of operator or field representative releasing fumigant.
First name and surname of crew when fumigant was released, when aeration commenced
and when the property was released for occupancy.
Indication of whether or not safety equipment was available at the fumigation site at the
time the fumigant was introduced, when ventilation commenced and when the property was
released for occupancy.
Date and hour aeration commenced. Conditions of tarp and seal.
Name, signature and license number of operator or field representative commencing
ventilation.
Type of device(s) used to test for re-entry.
Date and hour ready for occupancy.
Name, signature and license number of operator or field representative releasing property
for occupancy.
Method used to calculate amount of fumigant used. Factors used in calculation of fumigant.
Special notes or comments pertinent to fumigation.

APPENDIX XII Application for Continuing Education Activity, Form 43M-18.

APPENDIX XIII. Application for Continuing Education Activity Instructor, Form 43M-18.

APPENDIX XIV. Certificate of Completion (CEU Course), Form 43M-38 (5/87).

APPENDIX XVI. Application for Continuing Education Activity Instructor, Form43M-46 (3/93).

APPENDIX XVII. Fumigation Log Form, Form 43M-47 (Rev. 5/07).

File Type	application/pdf
File Modified	0000-00-00
File Created	0000-00-00